Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nazario889/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
aside from the obvious username see Draft:Macnuc services PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * While this is likely the same user, I'm not sure this warrants a block. User:Nazario889 was blocked in February 2022 for having a promotional username and making promotional edits. It appears that, rather than appeal that block and/or attempt to change their username (which is arguably not the most straightforward process), they've decided to simply make a new account and try again. When they created the new account, they appropriately posted a COI declaration disclosing their financial conflict of interest before creating a draft on their business. This appears to be more of a WP:CIR type situation, where this user simply doesn't understand WP policies about promotion of businesses, spam, conflicts of interest, etc., and they're just bumbling around trying to promote their business. I think this would be better handled by engaging with the user on their talk page and explaining to them that it's unlikely that WP will ever allow an article to be created on their Nigerian fumigation business. Blocking again at this stage might be WP:BITEy.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please undo your close - they were indeffed for a reason and they're continuing despite being blocked still. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * could you direct me to the section of the blocking policy which permits block evasion if the user lacks the necessary competence to edit, please and thank you. Nick (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Have to say that I don't agree with this close - that reasoning would be fine if they were soft-blocked for their username, but it was a hard block. They're not permitted to make a new account, and allowing them to do so amounts to overturning ' block without discussion. Spicy (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 's block was previously appealed and denied in 56647 (as is clearly evident on Nazario889's talk page) — this is plain block evasion, and I've blocked as such. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You're right, my mistake. For some reason, I saw that it was a block for a promotional username, and I just assumed that it was a softblock because they often are, but I probably should have looked more closely. Striking my initial comments above as invalid.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and indeed everyone else! I didn't remember this, so it took me a moment to see past the username change and verify that my hard-block was appropriate, but I think it was (promotional username + promotional edits), so creation of a second account is definitely not acceptable. Thanks all round, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)