Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets


There are over a dozen more IP's listed here. Because a cell phone is being used in this case, I didn't want to clog up this report with all of them. The two articles in question have now been protected, , as the socking continued today.
 * I've added User:UrbanCowboy12 to the list. Whether or not the sockmaster suspicions are correct, this account appears to have been registered by the thus-far anonymous user, as evidenced here. Equazcion  ( talk ) 22:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Doc9871
A long history of problems on the Charles Karel Bouley article (as well as the Margaret Clark article) has resurfaced with IP socks. The IP's all appear to be related (Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless, MYVZW.COM domain) and the editing style and focus has convinced several editors who have experience with SRQ that they are her, , , , ,. SRQ often used phrases such as "for the good of Wikipedia", "For the good of the article and WP in general" , and "the good of the article and the good of Wikipedia" - and the IPs similarly not only "care about Wikipedia" , but are concerned with things that are "for the good of the article and Wikipedia". Both SRQ and the IPs  threaten that the article will be "locked again". "Peacock" terms from this little-known article (where SRQ has a somewhat astonishing 343 edits) strongly want to be eliminated by both SRQ, and the IPs. Both SRQ and the IPs  give a brief "lecture" on the "Save Page" button below the edit summary. SRQ did say, "I am not going away from the Bouley article. Period." (and note the edit summary) ; in this passage, the phrase "social networking site" is mentioned, exactly like the IPs' use of it. Both SRQ and the IPs have a fundamental lack of understanding of 3RR and edit-warring, while engaging in it wholeheartedley: SRQ has often said things like, "The only person edit-warring is you...", and the Ips lecture, "Edit-warring is unproductive..." and "Edit warring over this article, or any article, is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia and deters others from wanting to take part in collegial editing."; very familiar language from SRQ. When SRQ sought solace at Wikipedia Review after her community ban, she was told to sock; she said she wouldn't then, but she also said giving up on WP was not a "reasonable alternative". Given the history between SRQ and DocOfSoc on these articles and the IPs' attitude towards her, I feel this is very clear case of disruptive sockpuppetry. Doc9871 (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Equazcion
I wanted to add some evidence to justify Sabra2's inclusion in this report.
 * Sabra2's connection to UrbanCowboy12
 * Sabra2's account was created at 21:30 on 24 May, just after UrbanCowboy12's sole article edit at 21:19 the same day, and subsequent sock accusation.
 * After the Sabra2 account was created, UrbanCowboy12 responded to the sock allegations on their talk page and stopped editing altogether. Sabra2 then started editing, and UrbanCowboy12 hasn't edited at all in that time (or ever since, as of this posting).
 * Sabra2's first contributions were to create a blank user and user talk page, presumably to avoid the attention of red user links, a tactic that UrbanCowboy12 also used, which similarly constituted their very first contribs.


 * Sabra2's connection to SkagitRiverQueen
 * SRQ and Sabra2 have both voiced concerns over "Find-A-Grave"'s reliability as a source: SRQ, Sabra2. Both users also used practically the same words to describe the problem: that Find-A-Grave is "not considered a reliable source". At the very least this seems an odd concern for a truly new user, but taken with the other coincidences here I think it says more.
 * Both users also appear to think the Mike Bickle article suffers from a POV problem, and made reverts to that effect: SRQ, Sabra2. Sabra2 even referred to the "version of article before POV was added back in" in their edit summary, suggesting a familiarity with the article's past. This could have been attained from a study of the previous revisions, but for a new user, and again taken along with these other coincidences, I think the chances of that are slim.
 * Sabra2 seems to have strange interests (contribs), mostly making "innocent" edits to blatantly Israeli topics (like Simeon Singer) that fit well with their equally blatant username ("Sabra" meaning a native Israeli); and then interspersed within those edits are contributions on the serial killers Ted Bundy, John Dillinger, and Ed Gein, which were popular haunts for SRQ. There are also the Mike Bickle contribs, who is a Christian leader, which seems oddly out-of-place for someone otherwise interested in ethnic Israel. SRQ had claimed on her userpage to be an ordained Christian minister and had 40 edits at that article. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:07, 1 Jun 2010 (UTC)
 * SRQ has a penchant for following me to the obscure articles I tend to edit. My parents were big fans of our Local, Molly Bee, so I thought that I would  fix her stub. And lo and behold, who turns up behind me? Sabra2! Not a very good disguise  SRQ.  And, who in this generation has even *heard* of Molly Bee?  "Socking&Stalking" should be her next name, the one to be blocked indefinitely. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Hi. I'm not sure I understand completely how this all works but I am not a "sock puppet". Why am I being accused? Did I maybe offend someone with some of my changes? Does this mean I shouldn't work on any pages while this is going on? If someone could give me some information I would appreciate it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabra2 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Discussion prior to the adding of User:Sabra2 to this report

I just want to add that SkagitRiverQueen has notoriously used her cellphone to edit Wikipedia, although I can't find the place that it was revealed that her phone used the same provider as the IPs above. Her rollback was removed on January 3, 2010 which was noted here and here. I also am aware that checkuser is unavailable on edits this old, but SRQ clearly stated here that "Look, it you need to, check the IP address for the rollbacks and you will see that it was through a different IP address than I usually use and coming from Verizon Wireless." I think this proof that she uses the same provider and the IPs listed above are to an article that very few other editors frequent is a prime example of a duck in the room that like the proverbial elephant, should not go ignored. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SRQ originally followed me to an obscure little article on my literally unheard of town before she was originally banned. An ongoing battle on minutiae ensued along with her de rigueur belittling. Coming back to said article to sock puppet does indeed make her the proverbial elephant. DocOfSoc (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which article is that? Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Equazcion, Previous to or in November, 2009,  history will show SRQ had followed me to both the "Margaret Clark" and "John Tran" articles, both Mayors of Rosemead, CA. I filed a complaint on November 14, 2009, in which I stated  How else would she have found these articles if she were not wikihounding. Same nitpicking, same abusive language as the currrent Sockpuppet.DocOfSoc (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at their continued responses, I'm increasingly curious about the user's immediate comfort with terms like 3RR, sockpuppet, and AGF, demonstrated first in this early comment (and perhaps to a lesser degree, terms like "ownership" and "edit warring"). The user was first accused of 3RR and sockpuppetry in edit summaries, but wasn't actually linked to their policy pages, as far as I can see. The way they immediately responded to those accusations with a seeming extensive knowledge of them is curious. It seems that even if this user isn't SkagitRiverQueen, they are some past user who would've had experience dealing with those policies; it might help their case if they told us what previous account(s) they may have had, if not the one they're being accused of here. For the record though, the communication style, topic focus, POV and the seeming continuation of old rivalries with the same users do have me thinking this is SRQ. Equazcion ( talk ) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Example: "IOW, she has ownership issues." -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC) DocOfSoc (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd also add that one of the IPs used phrasing such as "about building an encyclopedia.", a phrase that SRQ used to throw around when challenged and which she also discussed in her pleas for back-up over on Wikipedia Review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

She states this is the first time editing this article. And then she states in very familiar rhetoric that the article should be locked *again*! How would she know that if she was was not prevaricating about her previous experience as SRQ? ''"This isn't my first time editing Wikipedia, just my first time editing this article.. For the good of the article and Wikipedia, maybe it is time for this article to be :locked again." 70.197.159.65 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)'' DocOfSoc (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ban reset/length?

Just a reminder that the ban length should be reset if it is confirmed that she has been socking here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If all of these IPs are found to be related to SkagitRiverQueen, perhaps the ban length should be changed to indefinite rather than resetting a year. If this bears out, she would be much more prolific and in violation of her ban than anyone I recall seeing. I think that justifies indef. Just a suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was wondering the same thing. I'm not sure what Sarek means by "reset", but I think disruptive socking by a banned editor should entail more than the same ban length again. Equazcion  ( talk ) 13:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To "reset" a ban means to start it over again, with the same initial length, so that if SRQ is found to be socking, her ban is rest and she is banned for 1 year from the date of that determination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the ban shouldn't be reset, it should be changed to indefinite. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that would depend on the admin who makes the determination, balancing SRQ's rather defiantly disruptive behavior against whatever contributions she may be capable of making to Wikipedia in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should probably be up to the community rather than a single admin. This wasn't just a block, but a community ban. I'd say if the decision comes back that this is SRQ, and that she is socking disruptively in violation of her one-year ban, a discussion should be started on whether or not to make it indefinite. Equazcion  ( talk ) 04:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good point, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: Is this report missing something? It's been here, ignored for a while now so I'm thinking something more is needed to have the lists of possible socks checked, is this correct?  Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the report isn't missing anything; SPI cases just tend to take a while to get looked at in general. If you look at the main page WP:SPI, none of the other (non-checkuser) reports posted around the time ours was have been handled yet either. Equazcion  ( talk ) 14:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that more check users were assigned to help with these types of backlogs? Am I wrong?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The results of that election have just been announced, so I'm sure it'll be a while before the new hands are brought up to speed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooof, I shoulda looked at the election results before I posted that -- only one person got sufficient support to become a checkuser, so there's not a lot of help on the way anytime soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so one person got the rights! I'm sure there are editors on this site that should be able to do check users.  Oh well, thanks for the info. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ongoing discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions: Now with the accounts confirmed as socks shouldn't there be some blocking of the accounts? Also, SkagitRiverQueen was community banned for a year, shouldn't that now be adjusted to either a year from this date of confirmed socks or better yet indefinitely? What do we do with her now? There are many more IP's of her's. I've been reverting her on sight, as have others, with edit summary WP:DENY sock puppet. Is there anything else that can be done to stop her disruptions? -- Crohnie Gal Talk  21:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I suggested above, I think at the very least a discussion should be started somewhere, maybe at AN, on the possibility of turning this ban indefinite; unless an admin is willing to do that regardless. Cool Hand Luke says below that it's impossible to tell with certainty if this is SRQ, however SPI often concludes without absolute certainty, based on WP:DUCK etc, and I think the evidence presented above is sufficient for that. If an admin could comment on the non-checkuser evidence above linking SRQ to these accounts, it would help us move forward with this. Note that Cool Hand Luke also comments that the editing "method" is identical to SRQ, which I'm assuming means WP:DUCK is established here. Thanks. Equazcion  ( talk ) 22:19, 3 Jun 2010 (UTC)
 * By "method," I mean the type of internet access/device are identical, although the IPs and geolocation of those IPs does not match. Editing behavior should be scrutinized to see if they meet the duck test. I haven't looked into that in depth, but I do think the timing is suggestive (as is the fact that the second new account was set up as a sock to evade suspicion). If there's WP:DUCK here, there's no technical reason to believe they're not socks of SRQ. Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for clarifying that. That still leaves the question of who gets to determine whether or not DUCK exists here. Do we wait for another admin to come and check out the behavioral evidence, now that the checkuser stuff is done? Equazcion  ( talk ) 22:45, 3 Jun 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since UrbanCowboy and Sabra are confirmed, should they not be blocked at this point? And perhaps someone should point out this to SarekOfVulcan since he was very familiar with her editing style and behavior to comment on the WP:DUCK aspect of things? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * UrbanCowboy was already blocked by NuclearWarfare, and I requested on his talk page that Sabra2 be blocked on the same grounds. Waiting for his response. Sarek seems to be watching this case, and I have a feeling he's aware of the recent developments, but you can request his comment anyway. Maybe he's purposely recusing himself from making the DUCK determination though, maybe waiting for someone less previously involved. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:47, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to ask him myself. I just thought that with his familiarity with SRQ that he might have something to add here. I think we've all laid out our best DUCK evidence. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that an uninvolved admin make any further determinations, yes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which IPs were shown not to be connected? If "many" of the IPs were shown to be related, which were unrelated?  It is blatantly obvious that using the cell phone is a deliberate attempt to avoid detection; yet it's so clear to the many of us who have extensive knowledge of SRQ's editing style, pattern, voice, and intense interest in these articles, coupled with her claimed "devotion" to WP and Wikipedia Review association that it is her.  What more Duck evidence is needed - I'll be more than happy to dig it up... Doc9871 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the behavioral evidence hasn't actually been looked at yet, so we wouldn't know yet whether that evidence is sufficient. Cool Hand Luke only ran checkuser. I'm assuming someone will come along to make a determination on the rest eventually. Equazcion  ( talk ) 07:45, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)


 * Usually a clerk comes through and wraps things up. The second account that is not blocked should be by any administrator who sees this. I really don't know if a block can be done to the IP's she is using.  Sometimes they can do a range block for a period of time but I don't know about it here but if that can be done too that would be good. I think we have enough evidence to prove that SRQ is socking to take it to AN/i to talk about extending or changing her community ban.  Please, if any of you see her editing please use deny and revert her on sight with an edit comment that she is a sock evading the ban.  Maybe, hopefully she will get bored if her edits don't stick.  If you open an AN/i discussion please let me know.  If you want me to let me know that too.  I think it's time to rid the site of this obvious duck.  Good work guys and gals, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  09:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like NuclearWarfare blocked the other account. I don't think it would be a good idea to block the IPs&mdash;they are fluidly used by the user, so any group of individual IPs blocked would not really impede user's editing. Range blocks would also be a bad idea because legitimate editors do appear to use these ranges. I think taking to ANI with these results and a WP:DUCK argument to renew the ban would be the best approach. Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Luke, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted in this report that an AN/I discussion was started here concerning this case. Doc9871 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Update as of 6/22/10 This editor is still socking as of this.  She has now taken to attacking editors with no care in the world about doing so.  There has to be some way to stop this invasion by a banned editor who has had two accounts she made to sock with indefinitely banned.  We would like to ask a check user to please figure out a way to stop her socking with her Verizon accounts.  Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ that all of the following are operated by the same user:


 * many of the IPs listed above and on the user page
 * many of the IPs listed above and on the user page
 * many of the IPs listed above and on the user page

that also matches. The geolocation does not match, although it's not always reliable with wireless. Because there are no overlapping editing time periods, one can conclude that the user has moved (or that the geolocation is simply unreliable and should be disregarded). The method of editing is identical, but because there is no recent data, it's impossible to conclude with certainty. Use behavior. Cool Hand Luke 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll bite. Doc9871 has made a compelling case that SRQ == the IPs, and coupled with the CU evidence above, I find that SRQ has engaged in sockpuppetry to evade her block. I've extended the block to indefinite (technically, the one-year ban should be considered reset as of today, to be followed by an indef block upon the ban's expiration, since a single admin can't ban someone; I doubt that it would make much difference, though). T. Canens (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

08 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After a recent failed edit warring report against SRQ's favorite harassment target, it was demonstrated that this account has followed this editor to six different articles: List of people from Pasadena, California, Santa Anita Park, Montebello, California, Vesta Williams, Bruce Vilanch and Ovarian cancer (on the last one for a one-off edit made simply to revert an EL that DocOfSoc had been trying to include). This editor's signature is a direct copy of that of, and when they were reminded of this they rebuked Bwilkins (an admin at least formerly respected by SRQ as far as admins go) with chillingly familiar language for many that know of SRQ. Creating an increasingly defined and lecturing set of "rules" of the talk page are quite similar for the two accounts (SRQ, Lhb1239), as is routine blanking of posts where the editor has clearly had civility issues with several others (e.g. for just one small example among many) This edit and edit summary are completely in character for SRQ - no surprise there. Neither is this classic misunderstanding of policy, one of the many reasons that SRQ is a banned editor. Lhb1239 engages in the patented SRQ "point-by-point response": one of many examples of SRQ using this method is here. Evidence of stalking other editors can be seen with this cute little warning for edit-warring with an IP on an article that Lhb1239 hadn't edited in nearly two months. MatthewTownsend's response speaks volumes, and there are a multitude of diffs available upon request of the twice-blocked-for-edit-warring Lhb1239 warning others not to edit war, exactly as SRQ always did. Lhb1239 recently visiting an obscure article with 5 edits for which SRQ is the #2 contributor with 18 edits shows the same pattern of revisiting old topics. The stalker comparison shows edits to many of the same articles associated with SRQ, notably Isaac N. Ebey and Whidbey Island, as well as This Boy's Life (film), Newton Earp and Jim Caviezel. There were only 15 total editors (including 2 bots) in the entire history of this article, and somehow Lhb1239 found it to protect it from vandalism - quite an amazing coincidence. The fact that their first edits, and most recently created article (KSVU) center around the exact same area of the state of Washington that SRQ is known to be from, coupled with the ramped-up following of DocOfSoc for trademark "rewrites", make both myself and DocOfSoc convinced that there is little actual coincidence here. Doc  talk  13:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Copied from HelloAnnyong's talk page:
 * Being from not only Washington state, but the exact same region that SRQ is from.
 * Stalking DocOfSoc with not only straight reverts and alterations on articles that she blatantly followed DOS to, but the massive "rewriting" of articles DOS had been working on (also, with no other logical conclusion as to how they got there if they weren't actively stalking DOS).
 * Appearing at extremely obscure articles that SRQ is either the #1 or #2 contributor to. SRQ, like most editors, watchlisted the pages she contributed to and fought vandalism attempts against them. Even if Lhb1239 made one vandalism revert on each page, the odds of them watchlisting all of these small pages, or randomly coming across them in vandalism patrols, and not being SRQ are absolutely beyond remote.
 * A complete lack of understanding of policy, especially EW - so much so that they have been blocked twice for edit-warring themselves and have initiated 1 successful vs. 7 failed reports against others, coupled with general nastiness and condescension to most of the editors she has encountered on talk pages (and through her brand of "BRRD").
 * The hypocrisy. How does one put "I'm not fond of aggressive discussion" as the third tenet of their user page, yet come off with remarks like this? Not exactly the "warm and fuzzy" editor they claim to be after all - just like SRQ. She has always denied socking, yet the evidence shows that to be a lie in the past, and a lie right now.
 * The "point-by-point" responses pointed out in the SPI. This is classic SRQ, and I can't even remember another editor using this tactic to dismiss the arguments of another they way she does.

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


 * @HelloAnnyong: Isn't conflict what would be expected if Lhb is SRQ? I have to concur with Doc9871 that the evidence here is sufficient to justify a CheckUser scan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * it's clear that a checkuser request is totally valid in this case and in way not doing it is more likely to cause issues. Edinburgh   Wanderer  10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken has succinctly made the basic point. TY. — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  10:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @HelloAnnyong, Seriously? One would think  that after you blindsided me with an unfounded and unfair accusation of sockpuppetting, that you would do your homework this time.   I have no doubt this LHB is SRQ.  Despite months of hounding,  I engaged in no escalation despite the familiar scathing remarks and hounding by the Queen of Sockpuppets, SRQ, again!  She might as well have left fingerprints! My talk page is protected because of SRQ.  Other editors who have been hounded by LHB/ SRQ are beginning to chime in.  Links  will be  provided.
 * Note that no edits have been made by LHB since opening of this file.  — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  13:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out to HelloAnnyong in this section of his talk page: I know I'd be mighty angry if someone accused me of being a sock of a banned user when I actually wasn't. I'd kick and scream to prove my innocence. Since the evidence is overwhelming, there is no point in continuing to edit from that account now that it's out, and she knows it. Prove me wrong, "Lhb1239"! Defend yourself from these baseless accusations - it is your right, after all. Doc   talk  13:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Admittedly, I am conflicted here. On the one hand, I see the evidence (and found some of my own) that leads me to think that these accounts are related. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if this is the next step in an escalating conflict between Lhb and Doc. Can any other clerks chime in? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * SRQ and all their socks are at least a year stale, so we can't run a checkuser. Having said that, I find the evidence sufficient enough, so I've blocked Lhb as a suspected sock. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

29 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blue Marble Egg was opened shortly after LHB1239 was banned. LHB1239 is a sockpuppet of banned user SkagitRiverQueen.

Blue Marble Egg has edited primarily two articles: Grand Cayman Islands and Three Cups of Tea. Both articles were edited by now-banned user LHB1239.

Blue Marble Egg has made a number of reverts which is not common of brand new editors.

Blue Marble Egg uses twinkle (TW) to make some reverts, which is the same as LHB1239 did prior to being banned. Blue Pony Express (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Blue Marble Egg has actually edited five "Cayman" related articles that Lhb1239 has edited (Caribbean, British West Indies  , Grand Cayman  , History of the Cayman Islands  , and Talk:Cayman Islands  ), and that could seem like a major coincidence: possibly a fellow editor interested in that same region. But when you consider the edits to Three Cups of Tea, which is totally unrelated to the Cayman Islands and was extensively edited with 57 edits by Lbh1239, and that out of six total articles BME has edited in their 15 total edits, only one was not edited by Lbh1239... yeah. We're once again looking at staggering odds that this new user would watchlist these particular pages and not be SRQ/Lhb1239. Doc  talk  15:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Of particular note is anti-vandalism edit to the Cayman Islands talk page. BME has never edited that talk page or article page: so how did they get there? Randomly? Or is it because Lhb1239 has 49 edits to the article? It really just makes no sense that a random editor would follow this pattern. Doc  talk  23:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * SRQ's unrelenting castigation of myself is unmistakable.  — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  23:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

She did indeed seem to follow you to the Trayvon Martin article. While you were again her usual focus, her inability to is also present. It makes perfect sense that the Rollo V. Tomasi and Blue Marble Egg accounts are the same user; and that they are SRQ. I can tag them, but I can't block them (neither account is blocked at this time). Doc  talk  00:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The following users are as each other:



And the following user are ✅ as each other:



--MuZemike 21:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All blocked. Tiptoety  talk 05:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)