Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Normal Op/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See below. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:01, 24 September 2019 (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

 * For background see PAs, tendentious editing by advocacy editor thread from ANI archive.


 * Filing for the record as I blocked yesterday and made a note on their talk page also concerning IP socking. Master blocked for 72 hours and the sock indeffed and tagged.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, there was meatpuppetry with at Articles for deletion/Dogsbite.org as Normal Op (formerly Nomopbs) shares the same IP address with him.
 * Close per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 20:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Normal Op quit the project on 29 Oct 20 when the outcome of a discussion to reimpose their TBAN "from participating in all topics related to dogs and canines"  became obvious. The focus of Normal Op’s disruptive edits, resulting in the TBANs, is anything relating to pit bull-type dogs and associated breed-specific legislation and fatal dog attacks, the user adopting a passionate anti-pit bull stance.

The Platonk account was registered 13 Feb 21 and has started to very discretely make inroads back into the pit bull/breed-specific legislation/dog attack fatalities topic area, as can be seen from the user compare report, and several other additions like the creation of the  navbox which was initially a sidebar placed prominently at the top of the listed articles.

Specific evidence:
 * Adds content or improves sources/citations for content about pit bull aggressiveness – Normal Op & Platonk   (line 46)


 * Places any possible issues tags on any citation or information that might detract or distract from pit bull aggressiveness – Normal Op (bottom of diff) & Platonk  (line 44 in both diffs)


 * Attempts to undermine a study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2013 by G.J. Patronek et al (line 44 again)

Platonk arrived in February with a good understanding of editing and gadgets available, their 16th edit was listing an article for deletion and done with the aid of twinkle (see tag here), a practice and gadget Normal Op was very familiar with.

Both editors have very similar daily editing patterns, with practically no edits between 0900-1400 h UTC, given Platonk's comparatively low number of edits a burst of two dozen edits distorts the pattern somewhat.

They have elected not to respond when I raised my suspicions with them a few days ago and have largely steered clear of the topic area since then. Cavalryman (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

many thanks for considering the case, it was this arrogant & verbose TEXTWALL that confirmed my suspicions, arrogant walls of text that usually lack any meaningful policy based argument and requiring some form of conclusion in the last paragraph (or recap/closing/driving home of the point) are a Normal Op specialty. I normally find the pit bull / dog attack topic area a tedious time sink, but I will be watching him/her like a hawk from now on, they caused too much disruption last time. Cavalryman (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC).

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
'''This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of her training as a clerk. Please allow her to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on her talk page or on this page.'''
 * A precocious editor popping up in the topic area an inactive user is TBANned from, and making some similar edits... That's definitely more likely a sock than not, but I'm not convinced by that alone. There's a number of explanations for editors finding Twinkle quickly (I did! It's linked to from WP:AFD), and if these are two different users with a shared POV, it looks like some of the edits here are obvious ones to make to push that POV, e.g. undermining the Patronek study. Usually in a case like this I look at edit-summary style to break the tie, and I find that their styles are rather different, although I do notice both use reFill. in hope that technical evidence can shed some light. While Normal Op is likely stale, there's log data from the 2019 SPI to compare to. That filing also indicates that they shared an IP with as of two years ago, and engaged in meatpuppetry with them at the time.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting busy ranges, and (and/or no confirmed socks) ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Technical data is going to be unhelpful here. is  to, but I can't be sure. One of these users has a very busy range and a very common device. Would recommend processing on behavioural evidence alone ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a tough one. I'll start off by saying, Platonk is probably either Normal Op or Tangurena. "Probably" as in "above 50%". The general threshold to block as a "proven" sock is north of 90%, though. Platonk's use of default edit summaries removes a major avenue of comparison. Their interests are different than both other users': The only article they've overlapped on that isn't about dog attacks is Cattle (one edit apiece for Normal Op and Platonk), despite all three having significant areas of interest unrelated to dog attacks. There's some topic areas they share interests in, such as social issues in the United States, but none so far-removed from the known shared interest as to be strong evidence. In addition to the aforementioned reFill, they both use OneClickArchiver a fair bit, but that's far from unique. They both like removing unsourced material and OR, but again, very far from unique. It's enough coincidences for sockpuppetry to be more likely than not, but not enough to rule out the alternative.It would do more harm than good to block Platonk on this evidence. However, specifically in the dog-attack topic area I think it does more harm than good to allow them to continue editing there, and I'm unhappy that there's no way to satisfy both of those needs. If I could close this with a TBAN, I would, but that's beyond my authority. I could call for a partial block, but there's too many affected pages for that to be workable. So, reluctantly, I am closing this without action. If more behavioral evidence comes to light, please re-file. Better yet, ask on my talk page or by email whether the evidence is enough. And if there's ever a proposal to TBAN Platonk from the same topic area as Normal Op, you are welcome to cite this statement as endorsement of the conclusion that Platonk is probably a sock, either of someone already thusly TBANned, or of someone found to have acted as that person's meatpuppet. Likewise, nothing here precludes any admin from making a sockblock of their own discretion at a later date.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 05:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Normal Op "retired" from Wikipedia on 7 November 2020. This user a few weeks before this was indef topic banned from editing anything related to animals, more specifically dogs. I had only a few encounters with Normal Op which were not very pleasant. This user was an aggressive anti-animal welfare, anti-animal rights, anti-dog?, anti-vegan user who had an extremely bad POV who was taken to ANI numerous times for their aggressive behaviour on editing articles related to animals and bullying other users. Interestingly I remember seeing Normal Op add their retired template at the time and I thought to myself there is no way this user will quit Wikipedia, I suspected they would come back. Because they were topic banned on animals it made sense to me they would come back in a new disguise in an attempt to try and edit such articles again.

As a member of the WikiProject Animal rights, I am in communication on and off-site with other members on this WikiProject and on my personal watchlist I have thousands of articles in the topic area so I see who has edited these articles. I would point out I am not an advocate of "rights", what interests me is the history of it, unlike Normal Op I am not trying to push any biased viewpoint on the topic of animals. In December I was contacted by someone by email telling me that Normal Op was Platonk (my email is public), back then I thought it was a possibility but did not know a previous SPI had been filed and I did not look over it hard enough because it was Christmas. Recently a member of WikiProject Animal rights who was too scared to file this SPI (because Normal Op was abusive towards him) gave me some behavioural evidence that Platonk is definitely Normal Op.

The edit that I was given that confirmed it for me very quickly was this edit because I had a few run ins with Normal Op's aggressive editing I know their writing style. This edit confirmed to me that this is definitely Normal Op. It is the same agenda, writing style, layout etc. Please see the very distinct bullet point layout and links that this user cites. This is an exact match to what Normal Op did on many animal rights talk pages, please see here for example where he would often go on a rant about animal rights bias. Another edit that Platonk made which raised my suspicion that they are Normal Op was the edit on League Against Cruel Sports talk-page which is very similar to Normal Op's type of writing seen in the previous edit. Another very convincing piece of evidence is if you compare the long talk-page comments these users both make, compare by Normal Op to  Platonk.

Both Normal Op and Platonk have edited talk-pages related to veganism accusing other editors of "POV-pushing". Normal Op compared to Platonk. As above, the writing is the same as the other edits I linked. I will go through some of Normal Ops and Platonk's other edits in detail.

Platonk joined Wikipedia in February 2021 but is obviously not a new user because very early on they show impressive knowledge of Wikipedia policies and layout (as documented below), only a few weeks into editing and they are citing MOS:PEACOCK, WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADPROMO etc, this is very unlikely for a new user. If you look at their early edits they edited List of British breads and on 23 May 2021 List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom which had been submitted for deletion. If you check the history of this article, most of the article had been written by Normal Op and this user obviously did not want their work deleted. Platonk also commented on the afd showing deep familiarity with the topic, requesting for it to be saved. This user also created the list of fatal dog attacks template, a topic Normal Op was obsessed with.

Normal Op had a long history of removing content from animal rights, animal welfare and vegan related articles and would often write long complaints on talk-pages about how these articles were turning into "advocacy". This user would put in their edit summaries they were cleaning up the article or making copy edits (ce) but what they would do was delete mass content and leave the articles in a terrible way there are hundreds of examples of this. The first edit of this nature by Platonk was made on May 28 in which part of their edit summary commented "Clean up/copyedit. Removed OR/advocacy/puff language". The "advocacy" claim was a frequent statement that Normal Op would use to delete references they disliked on animal or vegan related articles or attack other editors, example. In this case, another user reverted Platonk's whitewashing. This type of white-washing disguised as making copy edits the article was done many times by Normal Op, for example see edits at SPEAK campaign and Animal treatment in rodeo, and Humane Society , you will just see red, red and red. I understand original research should be removed but not just deleting so much and not replacing anything. Both these users have a history of deleting chunks of text which they dismiss as "advocacy" without replacing the deleted text with anything. Platonk is now doing this sort of editing on plant-based milk related articles, example of that. The same as Normal Op, they use the term "advocacy" in their edit summaries. Yes this term is used by other editors but how many on animal rights articles in edit summaries? No recent ones at all, just these two specific users.

The repeated "advocacy" claims used by Platonk on animal or vegan related articles is convincing to me that Normal OP is Platonk, it is a favourite term they use to dismiss content or other editors they dislike. I have been on Wikipedia a while and in relation to animal rights (of 1000s of pages I am watching) Normal Op and Platonk are the only two users to use that specific term on talk-pages as some sort of slur term. Yes advocacy does exist but much of what these users remove is not advocacy. For example, Normal Op used this term many times, such as here, here on the Death of Regan Russell talk-page and harassing a vegan editor. I understand the policy on Advocacy, but Normal Op misused this policy to remove any edits they did not like related to animals or veganism. Platonk does the same. For example here claiming "plant-based milk advocacy" for a single line on the article that says plant-based milks are selling (they are). Only Normal Op is that obsessed like this. A single line on the article is not advocacy as cited above, both users did the same on other vegan articles then went onto the talk-page and accused editors of "POV-Pushing".

As stated one of Normal Op's editing habits was to mass delete content or place tags on articles related to animal charities, animal organizations, animal sanctuaries or vegan organizations, with no intention of improving the articles - another example of this at Richmond Animal Protection Society, Operation Kindness or one of the worst hack-jobs I have seen Cochrane & Area Humane Society  and Senior Animals In Need Today Society  and No Kill Advocacy Center. The agenda and pattern of editing is obvious. Platonk started doing this in June and continued this in July and August. Examples. Their edit on Animal Charity Evaluators mass deleted content and gave the edit summary as "Clean up/copyedit. MOS:PEACOCK, WP:PROMOTION". This type of editing matches Normal Op's behaviour and edit summaries. In this case a user restored part of their removal "restore rating positions. No deletion rationale provided other than puffery - peacock, and I don't see how that applies. It is a rating agency, so discussing their ratings isn't promotional". Platonk would return to this article a month later. An common observation here is that Platonk similar to Normal Op just deletes content on articles related to animal rights or animal welfare claiming edits are "advocacy" or "peacock" writing. I get that sometimes articles can be overly promotional but these mass content removals, they are not improving the articles and these are the only two editors in years to be making these exact same edits.

The linking of Wikipedia policies in edit summaries on animal welfare related articles was something that Normal OP did, for example and  which Platonk also does and shows great familiarity with, we wouldn't normally expect this with a user with a new account only 4-6 months old. If you scan around on articles related to animal rights or animal welfare very few users link to Wikipedia policy short-links in the edit summary. Interestingly both users also complained about inappropriate links on animal rights articles, upon request I could cite many diffs for that. I have seen no other editor talk about this in years of being on this website. Another rare type of edit on articles related to animals or animal rights is to completely remove the animal rights side-bar or template, no other editors have taken interest in this only Normal Op and Platonk.

Normal Op had an obsession with removing animal rights templates from animal and animal rights related articles. Good examples of this, ,. Guess what? Platonk does exactly the same on many articles, , , ,. I am watching 1000s of articles related to animal and animal rights and these two users are the only two users to take interest in removing animal rights templates and listing the same edit summary WP:NAVBOX. Indeed no other editor has done that. Platonk also likes to remove the vegetarianism template, again that is something that Normal Op complained about.

Normal Op and Platonk use the same layout on talk-pages, with specific bullet points and sometimes green writing ,. Another similarity is the fact that both Normal Op and Platonk when they make many major edits on articles, they leave a message on the talk-page. This is normal editing but when you look at their talk-page message they are very similar for example compare Platonk's edit on Simi Linton and Civil Eats  compare to List of vegan media  or more importantly this edit with bullet points  on Animal Rights National Conference this clearly matches to Normal Op's edits I listed above.

Similar to Normal Op, Platonk has edited many articles on animals i.e. Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. Sonny Perdue, dairy cattle, list of cattle breeds, American Veterinary Medical Association, Veterinary medicine in the United States and more specifically dogs Breed-specific legislation, Vizsla, Veterinary dentistry, List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, West Highland White Terrier List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom, List of fatal dog attacks in Canada, dog aggression, Samoyed dog, docking (dog), Adverse vaccine reactions in pets etc. Many of these Normal Op was obsessed with editing. Platonk made an edit on the dogbite article and its talk-page. If you check the history of this talk-page the last commenter was Normal Op and does not have much traffic. I believe Platonk is a skilled editor and will not comment many places where Normal Op is because he does not want to give the game away.

Platonk has inserted material about dog bites into other articles, for example this edit on the American Pit Bull Terrier, an article which Normal Op also edited. They have also edited articles related to Veterinaries, , the list goes on.

In December, Platonk started editing mass articles related to Ethiopia making minor correctors to templates and other minor fixes but is now trying to make some major changes. I am not convinced this is this users main interest it is more of a cover because they know certain users are now watching their edits. An IP accused Platonk of being Normal Op on December 17

I believe this is a "good hand" attempt to hide their real motives of editing articles related to animals and animal rights. But if you check their writing style again it matches to the long screeds of text that Normal Op would put on talk-pages again using same layout as Normal Op which as listed before matches Normal OP. One user questioned if this user was Normal Op why would they walk away from a large debate on a dog article, to me the answer is obvious they know their edits are being watched.

A previous SPI was filed suspecting Normal Op to be Platonk by user Cavalryman in September 2021. I only found that SPI a few days ago. In it one of the admins commented "Platonk is probably either Normal Op or Tangurena. "Probably" as in "above 50%". The general threshold to block as a "proven" sock is north of 90%, though". The conclusion was that more evidence is needed to be obtained if any action is to be made. I believe I have given behavioural evidence that Normal Op is Platonk. I believe they are the same person with the same agenda to infiltrate articles related to animals.

Lastly I would add as pointed out in the previous SPI, both Normal Op and Platonk edit at exactly the same times. They are active from 1am to around 8am in the morning and rarely in the afternoon with a few occasional edits at 6 or 7pm. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Here is a link to the diff/post of the other editor who didn't think I was the same editor as Normal Op. (PG mentioned them but didn't link to their post.) Platonk (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

By Platonk: I read what PG wrote, and I'm going to use bullet points, even if he thinks that's unique and rare (it isn't). I'm not going to cover everything, just some of the points which stood out as I read. And I will lean towards focusing on similarities to many other editors, since PG was focused on similarities to a single editor, and also will mention a few "how I got there" since PG has quite some errors in his theories of my intentions/edits. First I'd like to say that I have been professionally both a computer programmer and a technical writer, so my formatting, precision, logic/organization, command of language, style of instruction, ability to learn another programming language (such as wiki markup), debugging, research, and citations are just second nature to me. I'm not sorry I don't come across as a mediocre amateur. Wikipedia seems to be the perfect retirement hobby for someone like me.


 * PG asserts I "started" to edit Ethiopia articles in December as a "cover". I have been editing there for 2.5 months, since mid-November. I arrived there on an editing spree to remove deprecated source republicworld.com, and many were being used in the Ethiopia articles. I got interested in the Tigray War and stuck around, cleaning up wherever I could. I have edited practically non-stop in the Ethiopia category, and learned much along the way, and PG thinks I'm doing that for a "cover"? ROFLMAO. Making a new account would have been easier than 2.5 months of work. I was sick and tired of the drama that was going on related to political topics (from my dive into cleaning up dailywire.com citations) and Ethiopia was a welcome change, and it very much needed help. That spree of removing deprecated sources is also how I wound up editing in the films area too; but I lost interest in that after about a month. I would say that the majority of all of my edits, ever (if you could weigh them), have been in the Ethiopia area. PG's look at my Ethiopia contributions list must have been on one of those days when I was indeed editing hundreds of articles because I was checking every single entry in a navbar such as Template:Districts of the Oromia Region which has 287 entries on it.


 * PG keeps repeating I've edited a lot of similar animal articles, but I don't see it. Using two of WP's editor interaction tools, there are only sixteen (16) mainspace articles edited by me and Normal Op.  And a lot of those were because I was cleaning up AVMA/JAVMA & AAHA citations across Wikipedia. I will also point out that 16 cross-edit articles is a drop in the bucket considering both myself and Normal Op have edited over 2,000 articles each (per xtools). That's what... a 0.8% match?


 * My main foray into animal topics was when I was on an editing streak to clean up AVMA/JAVMA & AAHA citations (veterinary type citations), or the time I was cleaning up Template:Bibleverse usages that were external links (that brought me to Cattle). Check those edits. Just about each one includes something about AVMA/JAVMA/AAHA; and for some articles I read further and did other cleanup while I was there. That's typical of all my editing (arrive for one little thing; get out of chair an hour later wondering where the time went).


 * PG makes a big deal about pointing out that I have a thing about removing navbars/templates. I suppose I do. I prefer the policy WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and keep it in mind with my own template work (which is extensive). I had just finished a six week long project where all I did was deal with navbar templates, so finding an overuse/out-of-place navbar issue with other articles outside the Ethiopia topic should be no surprise, really.


 * Re accusations of anti- animal rights attitudes. I think I came across this because of my interest with yogurt, milk and dairy which I have permanently on my watchlist (unlike PG's, I keep my watchlist trimmed and use the expiring function liberally). I object to vegans co-opting a perfectly good food, piggy-backing on dairy's reputation ("we are milk, too"), while bad-mouthing it ("we're not only better than milk, but milk production is baaaaaaad"). Like when I made this correction, which led to more cleanup of the crossing of dairy and vegan content. Vegans, who are the animal rights people re the food industry, are passionate about their activism, and as long as there is any passionate advocacy out there in the world it will appear in Wikipedia. So no surprises here. As long as I have WP policy on my side, when I see something out of place I vacuum it up. And I can defend all of my edits. When I'm wrong, I can admit it (like my withdrawing a few AfDs I have nominated). But it seems that long explanations on talk pages are equally as bad as brief explanations on an edit summary, per PG. So I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't, I suppose.


 * Things that PG implies are unique or rare amongst Wikipedia editors, but are not:
 * "Green writing"? That's the TQ template which seems to be used to quotes what someone else wrote (rather than using quotation marks).
 * Bullet points
 * Using a talk page
 * Reading Wikipedia policy and using WP:SHORTCUTS to point others to it, whether on talk pages or in edit summaries
 * Similar editing times; simply says I'm likely in the same time zone or have similar sleep patterns. (You might be able to use editing times to rule out someone, but similar times doesn't make a positive ID.)


 * Miscellaneous:
 * Looks like PG is pointing out two editors who do bold, deep, thorough edits. I do this in all topics I edit. I'm sure I'm not the only one. That might seem to others like one is "obsessed" with a topic, but that's a false opinion of the editing style.
 * The commonality I see in most of those edit samples PG presented were some improvements along with the removal of stuff that doesn't follow policy.
 * I do some things similarly to other editors because I've read WP articles and WP policy and talk pages and edit summaries written by other editors. I learn from that and copy what they do. Not unique.
 * PG's mention about List of British breads makes no sense (just like the paragraph I removed from the article didn't; LOL).


 * Final points:
 * Re PG's assertion about new user showing proficiency, I point to Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet, which covers that point. (And remind that I'm an experienced computer programmer.)
 * To PG's accusation about my "intentions" [to do something while hiding intentions], I would point to the common sense adage of judging by one's actions and not by what you imagine is in their head. See WP:AGF for the WP variant of this.

That is all. Platonk (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, I remain utterly convinced that Platonk is Normal Op's latest sock. Arrogant walls of text that usually lack any meaningful policy based argument and requiring some form of conclusion in the last paragraph (or recap/closing/driving home of the point) are a Normal Op specialty, something Platonk also did prior to the last SPI being filed . The moment the last SPI was filed Platonk completely withdrew from editing dog articles, no doubt to avoid further comparisons. I believe the editor is quite clever and capable of learning from prior mistakes (although not so much as to avoid his TBAN being re-imposed) and so would adjust his behaviour to avoid further detection by the same methods as before. If this latest sock is blocked I have no doubt he will return soon in another form and edit heavily in other random areas of the project to disguise connection to this or previous accounts. With this is mind, I have observed another tell that I am very happy to share off-wiki with a closing clerk. Cavalryman (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC).
 * the email has been sent. As said if you would like me to find additional diffs please let me know either here or by email. Cavalryman (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I mostly spotted Normal op in some discussions such as Articles for deletion/Bulldog breeds, where I noted a tendentious tone and refusal to drop the stick. On the other hand, they also performed some helpful gnoming on some other articles I’ve worked on. I guess my take is if this was Normal Op trying for a clean start, they failed rule #1, which is not to engage in the same problematic behaviors as before. And there are some striking similarities between Normal Op’s problematic behavior and this current user’s. Might be worth running checkuser. But in Platonks’s statement above, what jumped out at me is an odd stalkerish remark attacking another user:  “unlike PG's, I keep my watchlist trimmed and use the expiring function liberally”. Our watchlists are not public… and this is not about PG, it’s a sockpuppet investigation, not ANI.  If nothing else, this remark proves we clearly have an experienced user.  Add to this near-identical interests to a previously sanctioned account, and behavior  when challenged that tries  to deflect attention from their own behaviors… it’s quacking like a duck to me.   Montanabw (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also checked my past interactions and found this thread that resulted in one of Normal Op’s t-bans. I noted there a tendency of the editor to jump in with aspersions quite quickly and then escalate to unnecessary levels of drama. Also, there was a weird socking incident right in the midst of that discussion. Definitely some similarities in behavior to here .  Montanabw (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am not at all convinced that Platonk is User:Normal Op (formerly User:Nomopbs - no mo pit bulls) That editor was here for one reason only - to advocate for BSL, and publish every dog bite by a bully type that he could list, and to make sure all pit bull articles included that information and the blood sport heritage from centuries past. See the 2018-2020 edit history for List of fatal dog attacks. Just look at the way Normal Op presented his argument in this diff and then bludgeoned others.  That is typical of his behavior, but that is not the behavior I'm seeing from Platonk. Granted, we haven't interacted, which may be another sign that it's not Normal Op.  I see that Platonk included a diff of a comment I made in response to the ANI case so I won't repeat it. After reading some of the many of the diffs provided in good faith by the OP, I did not see anything that convinced me Platonk is Normal Op, and believe me, I am the last person who wants to make that mistake. Come to think of it,  and I both became targets of the "no more pbs" advocacy which included an off-wiki professor who was spreading misinformation about us and WP.   Atsme  💬 📧 05:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. They do seem overly similar to me. This looks like someone who tried a "hard sell" approach, and got burned for it and has now returned with subtler approaches, but can't resist going back to some old habits. The "Fuggit, just delete what I don't like en masse and hope it sticks, or at least spam the article into the ground by over-tagging it" hacksaw-and-blowtorch approach is bolder than normal, generally unproductive, and virtually guaranteed to provoke dispute. It's highly suspicious for two editors to take this same aggressive and often problematic approach to the same material at the same pages when those pages otherwise see very little disputation. The "I'm going to make a tedious and long-winded bullet list of all the reasons I think I've outsmarted you" stuff is also a bit too much for coincidence in my book. Even if there's an outside chance these are separate editors despite all the "coincidences", Platonk would clearly need to be removed from several subject areas anyway, perhaps via ANI. As with Normal Op/Nomopbs, Platonk is here to sell various positions on things, by accusing the opposing positions of being "advocacy" and deleting them, itself obviously an exercise in advocacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Well, my eyes are just about bleeding, but I think I've got a handle on all this. Please don't write such long filings. I think I'm just about the only person who'd be willing to read this whole thing, and that's only because I've retained an interest in this case since the last filing. A little narrative is fine in an SPI report, but mostly we want just cold hard facts. Please see User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI for more information.Okay, so, despite the long report, this really comes down to one question: Has enough evidence emerged since September to move the needle past the confidence threshold for a block? To review, my findings in September were:
 * Unlikely that Platonk is on their first account.
 * Shared POV, with one emerging some time after the other's TBAN from the topic area.
 * Both use reFill and OneClickArchiver.
 * Both remove a lot of unsourced information and OR.
 * The main evidence against was that their interests outside of dog attacks differed. CU against a past and maybe present IP-sharer was inconclusive. So, to distill the new information:
 * Tendency to write talkpage messages after making a large edit.
 * Talkpage messages tend to have lots of bullet points and greentext.
 * Removal of animal rights navboxen. (Yes, this appears to usually be a correct reading of the guideline, but it's still distinctive behavior. Following PAGs can be as distinctive as disobeying them, especially for a guideline flouted as often as WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.)
 * Frequent accusations of "advocacy" of a pro-animal rights POV. I concur that "advocacy" isn't a term used very often; someone once accused me of violating WP:ADVOCACY and I was surprised to learn we even had a page of that name. It's not linked too often. Most discussion of what could be called advocacy centers around the terms POV and NPOV.
 * All of these, especially the first and third points, are, in combination with the previous evidence, fairly compelling. They're far from unique behavior, but, well, distinctive. And to these similarities I would add:
 * Normal Op ESes
 * Platonk ESes
 * These probably aren't the only two accounts in Wikipedia history to have that as their go-to "unsigned" summary, but it's not one of the more common ones, and it's one more similarity, a probability independent of the shared POV, of the shared scripts used, of the similar talkpage styles, and of the similar article-editing style. Personally, that gets me to the necessary confidence threshold.As I clerked the last filing, and because I've participated in a number of RfDs with Platonk (although never disagreeing strongly), I will leave the final determination to another clerk/admin, but my recommendation is to block. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 12:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Normal Op is stale for comparison. A previous check in this case against, with whom Normal Op at least once shared an IP, was ruled unlikely on the technical evidence, with instructions to defer to behavioral evidence. And that's assuming that Tangurena is still on the same IP as Normal Op, which we have no way of confirming or denying. I do think the watchlist remark was a reference to PG's earlier comment about having a long watchlist. But I agree Platonk's general precociousness can't be denied. Notably, they found Twinkle quite early on, and as I said at the previous SPI, it is possible for a new user to do that—I did—but it's quite rare. They also pretty quickly installed the generic edit summary script, which has obscured one major avenue of sock comparison. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - would you care to e-mail me the observations you alluded to? This is not to say that the evidence already presented is insufficiently compelling - I have you yet to evaluate that - but I'd rather have all the evidence available from the get-go. If you could make it succinct, and provide links to diffs, that would be appreciate. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  15:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on observed behavior alone, I am unsure if Platonk is Normal Op. I see a lot of similarities, but also some differences.  I also did some CU-ing.  Everything in the archive is stale, but there's enough in the logs to allow me to say Platonk is   to Normal Op on the technical data (I left some notes in cuwiki).  I see other people have already done deep dives into the behavioral aspects, so I'll leave making a final call to others. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been doing a bunch more fishing in the CU logs. What I've discovered (and what TNT was probably alluding to in this comment) is that some of these IP ranges have also been used by other (seemingly) totally unrelated cases.  Accordingly, I'd knocked my appraisal down a notch.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read through the above, and have also received a couple of e-mails now with further observations; I've also looked at the information recorded on CU wiki. Nowhere is there a 'smoking gun' that I can point to and say with cast iron certainty that these two accounts are irrefutably being used by the same person. However, when I look at evidence in its totality - the CU data, the overlap of editing interest (which is small as a proportion of total articles edited, but substantial nonetheless), the behavioural similarities, certain quirks in their use of language - I am convinced that this is the same person. As such, since I conclude that the sock account was created to evade a topic ban and to evade scrutiny, I am blocking both accounts indefinitely; and since these conclusions are based partially on CU evidence, I will mark them as CU blocks. Closing. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
New account diving right into arguments about pit bulls, on the same side as Normal Op. Similar writing and argumentation styles, fairly similar edit summaries, and see vs. permalink. Requesting CU against log data for Normal Op and Platonk. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:04, 27 May 2023 (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

 * -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The interest, POV and stylistic overlap screams sockpuppetry, and also agenda-driven editing. A block is possibly justified based on behavioral evidence alone. But for now, I'll just note that is clearly PartyParrot42 (the IP's only edit was made prior to the account creation, so that's not an infraction in itself). Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * PartyParrot42 appears to be ❌ to Normal Op. There's more than one sock farm that's into blood sports; Sockpuppet investigations/SirIsaacBrock has in the past been confused with Normal Op, so I took a look at the notes on that case; it doesn't look like a match either. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roy. Closing. If you want to go for a DE/NOTHERE block, I agree that would be reasonable.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check, Roy. I don't pretend to know the sock-master but it is pretty clear that this user is not exactly new to wikipedia. And irrespective of that, the editing of this account alone has been tendentious, POV, and disruptive. I have indeffed them with a longer explanation given in my block notice. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)