Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll/Archive/1

Report date July 15 2009, 01:52 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Avraham

This came as a result of WP:ANI and the history of Moodiesburn including legal threats. -- Avi (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Avi (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

The confirmed accounts are now blocked indefinitely, including the master. -- Kanonkas : Talk  18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk Request User:The abominable Wiki troll is probably the oldest account, and this should likely be moved under that name. -- Avi (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * SPI case moved per request. -- Kanonkas : Talk  18:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appeal for such a move not to be made. This computer is a shared one with other roommates. This account has been used purely for constructive edits, as a brief glance at the edit history will reveal. The abominable Wiki troll (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Accounts" are not relevant; otherwise people could, with impunity, vandalize with one named account and edit constructively with another. That's why we block and ban individuals, not their accounts. The checkuser results are unquestionably accurate; it is possible that your roommates have poisoned your account for you, but there's not much we can do about making sure your computer is secure from nasty roommates. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are related:

-- Avi (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by 3bulletproof16
The accounts listed show a similar pattern primarily focusing on Talk:ECW Championship as well as the same edits to Gary Oldman, Queen (band) (including frontman Freddie Mercury), Oasis (band), and English personalities. As it pertains to Talk:ECW Championship, the user begins with comments regarding subjects such as PWI and "world status". These are some of the socks' only edits and are then never heard from again. With other socks, when it is clear a consensus is against their point, the socks subsequently engage in edit warring on ECW Championship. The discussions regarding the arguments brought up by the sock puppets can be seen beginning with this archived section through the last section in the archive as well as in the current section at Talk:ECW Championship. The subsequent edit warring can be seen in the following diffs
 * Also note the two IP addresses listed can be traced to the United Kingdom.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Several of the above accounts already blocked as sockpuppets of Former user 9. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
The Users listed above have a edit history so close together that its unbelievable that nobody has suspected this guy before now. There can not be any why for this user to deny that he or she uses all these accounts.--Dcheagle (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by -- Unquestionable Truth -- 00:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike 07:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

– Actually, I'm going to decline this instead. Upon further review, User:Former user 7 is a sock of User:EdgarBacon per WP:DUCK. The remaining accounts cannot be checked as they are all. MuZemike 07:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What of the IPs?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 07:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, checkuser won't be able to go back that far and check. If those IPs start up again, then report them if necessary. Otherwise, there's nothing checkuser can really do here. MuZemike 07:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thank you. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 07:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
User:EdgarBacon, has been indefinitely blocked and tagged. MuZemike 07:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Remaining registered accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged now as socks of User:The abominable Wiki troll. IPs left alone at this time. MuZemike 08:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Report date October 17 2009, 16:30 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

User admits it: /  TJ   Spyke   16:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  TJ   Spyke  

The conclusion is that the previous block was evaded with ease, and will be again. Why not work towards establishing whether or not the ECW Championship IS a legitimate world title instead of blindly banning people? It's a waste of time anyway - I merely access a program on my pc and I'm unblocked, free to roam Wiki again. Let's be reasonable and discuss the issue rather than behave like children. Former user 8 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Each account will be blocked. Vandals will not be allowed to roam Wikipedia (especially ones like you who don't like to admit you are wrong and that the consensus of EVERYONE is that you are wrong). I suggest this user's IP range be blocked too.  TJ   Spyke   16:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the sock, but he has requested an unblock. Willking1979 (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note most recent Checkuser case.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 16:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I am sure it will be shot down. His reason for asking is saying "The ECW Championship is not a world title because PWI says it isn't" (PWI is a independent wrestling magazine). That is an issue that has been discussed ad nausem with the conclusion that PWI's opinion is not law or canon in deciding what it considered a world title and that it is a world title. Besides, with that users sock puppet history, I don't think it matters what his appeal reason is. He freely admits to using sock puppets and says he will continue using them to evade his block.  TJ   Spyke   16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't about any discussion anymore. This account along with those listed in the previous case show the same pattern primarily focusing on Talk:ECW Championship. The user begins with comments regarding subjects such as PWI and "world status". Finally, when it is clear a consensus is against their point, the socks subsequently engage in edit warring on ECW Championship. The discussions regarding the arguments brought up by the sock puppets can be seen beginning with this archived section through the last section in the archive as well as in the current section at Talk:ECW Championship. The subsequent edit warring can be seen in the following diffs      This puppetier was never serious about a discussion and it is clear that he was only playing games. Look at the final edit history of his previous sock User:Former user 7 -- Unquestionable Truth -- 16:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * CheckUser request

Self-endorsing for CheckUser to block underlying IP and check for sleepers, since the user is intent on keeping this going. MuZemike 20:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked and request for unblock denied. TN X Man 17:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

I ran a checkuser for sleepers. His amazing, awesome means of evading his block consists of resetting his router. I hate Tiscali... J.delanoy gabs adds 02:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great... NW ( Talk ) 02:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * - self confirmed sleeper sock.
 * - self confirmed sleeper sock.
 * - self confirmed sleeper sock.
 * - self confirmed sleeper sock.
 * - self confirmed sleeper sock.

Evidence submitted by 3bulletproof16
Two recently discovered still active socks of User:The abominable Wiki troll. See the last two checkuser cases  Same edits to Gary Oldman, Queen (band), Freddie Mercury, English personalities and professional wrestling related content. Note the IP and the User sock can be traced to the UK as in previous cases. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.


 * This is ridiculous. Is the punishment for sockpuppetry to eternally burn in hell? Surely making the wealth of constructive edits I have makes for a changing of ways? Am I to be blocked again for doing nothing whatsoever from this account? I am a new man and have been enriching Wikipedia since my last block. What am I being blocked for? Fester Smith (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at my user page - I fully admit to vandalizing Wikipedia. I was blocked and since then I have been carrying out only constructive edits. So where's the crime? Fester Smith (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * These two diffs are from this past week alone! -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that username is blocked. Find once instance of vandalism from this username - go on. I have contributed to the project with only constructive edits and created my first article yesterday. So essentially, you're trying to block a user who's been punished, started anew and done nothing but try to improve Wikipedia. Fester Smith (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are currently in violation of evading a community sanctioned indefinite block. As for anything else, the community will conclude elsewhere what kind of effect this now 2-day old "born-again"-self of yours will have on the project. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "what kind of effect this now 2-day old "born-again"-self of yours will have on the project" - try looking at the contributions.
 * Ah, go fuck yourself, you virginal twat. How's that for an intellectual retort? Fester Smith (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good riddance.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good riddance? Not quite. I will continue to vandalise with aplomb. Fester Smith (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OF COURSE I'M GETTING BLOCKED, BUT FUCK IT. I TRIED TO ENTICH WIKIPEDIA WITH LOTS OF CONSTRUCTIVE EDITS, BUT I'VE BEEN REPORTED BY THIS VIRGINAL TWAT AGAIN. THIS TIME I DONE FUCK ALL. DON'T WORRY YOU LITTLE FAG, YOU'LL SHED THE BURDEN OF VIRGINITY SOON. MAYBE. Fester Smith (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * User:Fester Smith is making good on his above threat to vandalize Wikipedia to the greatest extent possible. I've reverted his vandalism thrice in the last few minutes, warning him each time, and a glance at his contributions indicates that's not even the full extent of it. It seems he ought to be blocked. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose a community ban. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update User:Fester Smith has been blocked. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The puppetier will create new socks. His means of evading his block consists of resetting his router through Tiscali. As a result, I suggest my proposal above. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan of action to me. Speaking of which, let the record show that Fester Smith has indeed threatened to continue his incessant vandalism using other socks that he claims are established accounts – see his edit summaries here, here and here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A community ban should be the only course of action for this lets put this to end and do a community ban.--Dcheagle (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by -- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

– I don't know what good it's going to do, though. MuZemike 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Fester Smith blocked indef--even if this isn't a sock, it's clear from his edits before yesterday that this account has been compromised. Sweep is still necessary, I think. Blueboy96 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The sock has requested to be unblocked -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All other registered accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged as obvious socks. MuZemike 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Found one sock, but this is essentially worthless. Tiscali should be bombed off the face of the earth. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On the bright side, Tiscali scored worse than AOL in an average connection speed test, so at least this guy is getting what he pays for.... J.delanoy gabs adds  04:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Closing per J.delanoy's comments. NW ( Talk ) 04:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Avraham
Originally a Quick SPI. Bringing here for on-wiki record. -- Avi (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Avi (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)



I am going to acc block half of Tiscali if this continues. -- Avi (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Snigbrook
These accounts have edited articles previously edited by the blocked user, often edit warring and inappropriately accusing other users of vandalism (articles include Queen (band) and the band's albums, Bret Hart, Gary Oldman, Moodiesburn, Cud (band) and Sidney Cooke). Also possibly the same user as at least some of the accounts in Sockpuppet investigations/HughieAndHagred, and there is another recent case, Sockpuppet investigations/Kevin LaBrie. snigbrook (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

It's me, indeed. As always, any blocks will be evaded with the greatest of ease, and editing will resume within a matter of minutes. Adhering to IP blocks is pretty last year, right? Thanks for raising the SI, though... there are always a few laughs to be had. It's interesting that the person who raised the SI is running around Wikipedia with six additional accounts. Hmm... case of pot and kettle, methinks! Dress it up whatever way you like though, of course. Anyway, kindly inform me when I've been blocked (you good souls usually do) in order for me to evade it and instantly resume work. Cheers! I&#39;m brilliant at it (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that account has now been blocked. TN X Man  16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
It's him. He's been involved in disputes with Wikiproject:Professional Wrestling as well. As shown in the edit histories of the currently accused accounts and in past archived cases, his history included numerous edits to the same wrestling-related articles. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 00:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention, given the history of this user. –MuZemike 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jame O'Sawyer indefinitely blocked per WP:DUCK. –MuZemike 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Most all of the named accounts abusive multiple accounts, and I found some more. I am a little uncertain about Jame O'Sawyer, mostly because of the age of the account; behavioral evidence should be checked there, but there is plenty of technical connection. There does seem to be two different clusters here; regardless, the abuse is clear. I wouldn't mind another checkuser taking a second look. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * also blocked. –MuZemike 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (indef blocked)
 * (indef blocked)

Evidence submitted by Michig
The same pattern of vandalism that we have seen for a long time from the socks associated with this person.--Michig (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

[Trolling removed] –MuZemike 03:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Michig FM (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

[Trolling removed] –MuZemike 03:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Every day I wake up.Every Day I Wake Up (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Everyone's blocked. TN X Man 02:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅/ Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are likely related to User:The Abominable Wiki Troll (TAWT)
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Hard and soft rangeblocks applied
 * Please move this under TAWT.
 * Please move this under TAWT.

-- Avi (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

moved by MuZemike, accounts have been blocked + tagged SpitfireTally-ho! 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Uncle Dick
Admitted sock of User:The abominable Wiki troll. See here. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Uncle Dick (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

sleepers, as ever, (Hugghezz hasn't come up in previous checks because the account was stale), SpitfireTally-ho! 21:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, no previously unblocked sleepers. --jpgordon:==( o ) 00:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Report date March 12 2010, 22:22 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

See this AIV report SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994).
 * I have added 85.210.127.166 to the suspects list as of the contents of this talk page looking suspicious with an already confirmed sock making legal threats and a few minutes later, this IP says the user, apparantly his son, has been banned from Wikipedia several times and that his "son" is schizophrenic and has had his computer confiscated. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * User has made constructive edits to Suede (band), where several sockpuppets of have edited, but has vandalised Cud (band), which has already vandalised by several sockpuppet accounts including . snigbrook (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested by SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

–MuZemike 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That IP is not going to do much good to us, as the last edit was on 1 February. This guy hops all over Tiscali, and blocking that IP would be useless. –MuZemike 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Spinechiller is ✅. I'll be blocking a few more in a moment. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Luna Santin got 'em. Nothing left to do here. Tim Song (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by MuZemike
Exact same barnstar action on Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive that has been done this past week on Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll/Archive by User:StaceyBarnstars, User:WinslowBarnstars, User:Pilato jones, and User:Bobby robyatson (,, , , and ).

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Glagrass has been blocked and looking at the unblock request on the users talk page, it looks to be indefinite. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The talk page has now been deleted by an admin. Still worth checking to see if AWT has used this account. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by –MuZemike 19:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

all of these are blocked and tagged, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Report date March 19 2010, 14:23 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

[] see edit summary Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Hell In A Bucket (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Not really any point to a checkuser -- these are all Tiscali IPs. Seems like User:The abominable Wiki troll to me, but who knows (or cares).  All already blocked.  NawlinWiki (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

to check on this following user:



–MuZemike 17:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ✅, nothing else of interest --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Snigbrook
Mistaken use of Template:Db-band, similar to recently blocked sockpuppet :, and also edited the talk page of an article previously edited by another confirmed sockpuppet, , in a discussion about merging an article created by PhilOak. snigbrook (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention as there are likely others lying around. –MuZemike 22:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Blocked several sleepers which I'll decline to list here for now. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagged sock. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 01:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Snigbrook
edited Bret Hart and Stu Hart, only previous edit, several months ago, was to vandalise Drumpellier article and then revert the vandalism. The name mentioned in the edit to Drumpellier article is the same as a sockpuppet of User:The abominable Wiki troll. changed orders of associated acts in Suede (band) infobox, same as previous socks - IP address has been blocked recently. added inappropriate speedy deletion template to album article and added a proposed deletion to Girl on the Radio, after invalid speedy deletion (by sockpuppet User:Jiles O'Ire) was declined. has no edits other than two deletion nominations, and one is an article previously nominated for speedy deletion by sockpuppet User:Yigexingqi. snigbrook (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by snigbrook (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's worth checking out. Auntie E. (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, all of them. Knocked out some sleepers too. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * tagged SpitfireTally-ho! 19:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Indopug
Articles edited are similar to those by many of User:The abominable Wiki troll's other socks—professional wrestling articles; Suede (band) and related articles; Queen (band) and related articles etc. —indopug (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

10 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Continuing campaign to harass a living person evinced by socks of the user. See, for example, radio-related edits by blocked sock David Winslow and Yup, I'm Gay. Plenty of quacking here, but checkuser requested for sleeper check, as this person is evidently prolific and sleeper checks have ousted socks before. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2011 (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

 * - I've blocked Kip and bun per WP:DUCK, and I'm endorsing for sleepers against the sock. I don't think there's any way of formally tying this sock to the master, though, as all its socks seem to be stale. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you about connections to previous accounts, but the following are all the same person:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 15:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All the socks have been blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 15:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All the socks have been blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All the socks have been blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

17 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Wayne Paine was in a dispute with an anonymous user on Plas Teg. A new user Clive Hopwood, with no previous edits to articles, corrected the grammatical errors that were the reason for reverting, a few minutes after Wayne Paine had restored his version. There is a "Clive Hopwood" quoted in the article, added by PhilOak in 2009 (see ), with a reference added by Llenden the following day (see ) - both have been blocked as sockpuppets of "The abominable Wiki troll". Wayne Paine, PhilOak and Llenden have all edited Solway Firth Spaceman, and edit summaries by Wayne Paine on User talk:Wayne Paine and Llenden on Solway Firth Spaceman are similar, both uncivil and describing seemingly constructive (or at least good faith) edits as vandalism, so Wayne Payne seems to be a new account created to evade the ban, and the Clive Hopwood account may be another sockpuppet. Peter E. James (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2011 (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

 * We ran a checkuser for these a week ago and neither account came up. Is there a connection? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ as well as:

Tiptoety talk 04:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, Wayne Paine was also ✅. Everyone's been blocked, so I'm closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

23 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Requested by MuZemike. CU results coming. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  02:44, 23 April 2011 (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
✅



–MuZemike 02:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

22 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

WP:QUACK. Typical mix of edits to Gary Oldman, pro-wrestling and (mostly British) popular-music articles. —indopug (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's me. I've never stopped editing since I was first banned five years ago, and never will. Ban me, you get some feeble sense of autonomy, I reset my IP, and the cycle begins again. It's not as if there's been an ounce of vandalism from me in years, but I understand that banning people gives certain admins a rush that they just can't find in real-life interactions with real people, which are doomed to fail. While you're establishing what to do, I'll get that ball point pen ready for the upcoming router reset, so that I don't have to miss a single second of Wiki-editing time. G'day. أنا أحبك (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2013 (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

 * Blocked and closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

04 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

First two are clearly TAWT per compulsive insistence on "hook-free" comments on songs. Other 3 were reported to me on my talk page as possible socks. Not as obvious from contributions, but certainly possible, so please check. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2013 (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

 * - I'm currently checking this, and there appear to be many more accounts involved. I'll post results as I go along. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:


 * Please note that these socks have singlehandedly nominated and deleted Articles for deletion/Black Shuck (song) (2nd nomination). More AFDs may be corrupted. @Arbitrarily0: You may wish to take note of this as the closing admin.
 * appears (for now) to be pretty to be related to the above, but appears to be running sockpuppets of his own. He is ✅ as:


 * is to be related to either of these groups. This is a very tenuous check; you should consider this result  for checkuser purposes and evaluate behavior alone.
 * Addendum: PC7705 is quite related to, who is very obviously a sockpuppet. Coupled with behavior, I'd say they are all The abominable wiki troll. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Are we having fun yet? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * - I think that's all of them. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

05 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Obvious from contributions. Also obvious that we missed at least one IP/range yesterday. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2013 (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

 * - He's on a range with hundreds of unrelated users on extremely rapidly-rotating IPs. Anyway, he's using sleeper accounts where the checkuser data has expired. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do. Rschen7754 21:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

24 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User:Zoo of Babylon shares the "hook-free" / Babylon Zoo obsession. Other two have been editing the same articles as the same times, in what seems to be the sockmaster's music-review-hyperbole writing style. McGeddon (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2013 (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

 * is ✅ along with.
 * is a match to the Master and a ✅ match to,  ,  , and .--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  19:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All accounts tagged and blocked indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

24 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

-- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Please see edit history, edit warring history, and current request for unblock on user's talk page for evidence. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Comments from blocking admin: I've already blocked User:Прискорбные as a sockpuppet of banned User:The abominable Wiki troll. See user talk history if you want the gory details. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: this section has been moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Jimbo: "Ooohhh". Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

23 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Styrofoam King was just blocked for edit warring Phil Collins (among others) just like the most recently blocked sock of this user, and as soon as the user was blocked it followed up with a trademark edit summary all in caps + blanking of the talk page. "Autumn harvest thrives" is editing the same articles (e.g. Phil Collins, Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, Calling All Stations, Organisation (album), etc) with the same kind of edit summaries/language.

Filing for checkuser as these accounts were all created before the last account was blocked on November 24, so there are obviously sleepers out there. Nymf (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2013 (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

 * Note: both blocked indef per duck test. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've blocked a group of unblocked socks. I'm not listing them here per WP:DENY. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

19 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The T in the Park article has a history of sockpuppets adding a lengthy coatrack section about antisocial behaviour at the festival, or writing a separate article for it (Neds and anti-social behaviour at T in the Park was deleted as block evasion in September 2013). User:Turdice added the section back most recently in March, two days before being blocked as a sockpuppet of The abominable Wiki troll, but the section was never deleted, and attracted some further IP edits. User:Culeygirl registered a couple of weeks later and moved the section to its own article as "outgrown parent article", as her fifth edit to Wikipedia. McGeddon (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * The language in the edit summaries also gives it away. Nymf (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. Did some underlying IP blocks, no obvious sleepers. NativeForeigner Talk 16:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * is a technical match to the master (only because most of the data is stale, the behavioural connection is much stronger) and ✅ to, ,  and . They are also editing extensively under multiple IP ranges, so I've smi-protected T in the Park.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  17:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's why it all looked miraculously blocked. :) NativeForeigner Talk 17:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

29 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Looks like an old account activated purely to restore WP:EVASION additions to T in the Park. McGeddon (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I admit to the above accusation. Gegerages (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * In addition to, there is also and .--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  21:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged as confirmed, already blocked. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

17 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This editor obsessively edits music-related and music review articles, currently his favorite is List of music considered the worst, just as it also was the favorite of "abominable" socks User:Agendapedia and User:Trying to envelop. Same obsessive type of concerns for inclusion/removal of songs in the article of the above-named socks as well (see and ). Further, this account became active shortly after Trying to envelop was blocked for evasion/socking. Seems to easily pass the Duck test. Editor interaction utility for all three socks I have included here also tells the story quite well (see here ) -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 09:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on admission by The abominable Wiki troll here:, have added Can't hurry love as another sock account to be reported and checked. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 06:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Winkelvi conceded that he lost an argument to me about the inclusion of a song on List of music considered the worst, and now seems to be bitter. Wasting the time of other users with this nonsense – because I've productively worked on an article previously inhabited by a vandal user – really is reprehensible and reflective of the fact that your personal feelings come before the betterment of the encyclopedia. Goblinostic (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice try at redirecting, but not even close. Last I looked, our disagreement ended amicably with both of us satisfied and there was no hint of hard feelings, just a desire for the article to be edited correctly and for unwanted behavior to disappear.  See here  and here  for evidence that your characterization of how things ended is incorrect.  No, I starting thinking you were a sockpuppet months ago based on your early-on aggressiveness and familiarity of how to edit, the kind of edits you made, and your edit summaries when I encountered you at the "List..." article in August.  At that time, I checked to see when your account was opened and was immediately suspicious when I noted you had been editing only since July.  The commonalities with the other socks speak volumes, regardless of your protestations.  You've freely admitted being a sock previously when caught, why not just do the same now? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  17:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Same Phil Collins hate/obsession as the previous socks. Even managed to add a nazi comparison in this edit (he earlier called Collins "the anti christ", among other things). Nymf (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't wanna go down that road, where those edits came from. That was from a very dark place indeed. Goblinostic (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like an admission to me. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got anything but a 'fair' history (on Wikipedia). It's dark, it's gruesome, it's full of bloodthirsty deeds and sorrowful events. Goblinostic (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Obviously, the above statement from the accused party along with this edit: gives more credence to this report being accurate. Given his past taunts and promise to continue socking, I am requesting a check for sleeper socks and any new socks this individual has created since this report was filed.  As obsessed as the accused is with editing certain articles and certain types of articles, I find it hard to believe he hasn't been socking under other accounts/IPs since he stopped editing with the Goblinostic account when this report was filed. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  17:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The vitriol for a constructive editor is baffling. I indeed have multiple accounts but that's because I was banned for no reason in the first place. I want to improve the encyclopaedia, but I guess I'm not part of the boys club. Too bad. Goblinostic (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a bunch of users that will probably end up showing in the CU, like, for example. Unless he used a different public computer for that account, of course. I caught him months ago, but haven't had the energy to file a report. Nymf (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I had wondered about Can't hurry love being a sock of someone. Makes sense now.  Will you add it, Nymf, or should I? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  20:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's one of mine. 100% constructive account, not that it matters to the boys club. Goblinostic (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Courcelles 07:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The following are all internally ✅ even though the archive is stale:
 * Account blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  21:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

20 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The Devlin account was created within five hours of nine Abominable socks being blocked in January 2010. Some of those socks (eg. User:Bob Loves Grib) had been making edits related to the band Queen immediately before being blocked; Devlin's first dozen edits included edits to Queen tribute act One Night of Queen (an article later edited by another Abominable sock) and then - once autoconfirmed? - they abandoned the account for five years.

In December 2014, Devlin returned to wikilink Buckfast Tonic Wine in a T in the Park section written and repeatedly added by previous socks of Abominable (eg. 1). Past Abominable socks have written about the link between T in the Park and Buckfast Tonic Wine in adjacent paragraphs of the "Neds" article.

Devlin shares previous socks' tendency to add comically negative review quotes to articles about bands, with a particular focus on multiple articles about obscure 90s band Babylon Zoo (eg. 1, 2; 1, 2 - the second example picking out the exact same review quotes). Devlin also shares past socks' tendencies towards uninsightful, scatalogical review quotes (1, 2).

Other parallels are a keenness to stress that Babylon Zoo are "one-hit wonders" (1, 2) and to noodle over just how "mixed" reception to a song or album was (1, 2). Checking edit history overlap there are also odd coincidences such as Devlin copyediting a specific paragraph about Jimmy Savile six months after it was added by an Abominable sock. McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Hahaha! Your obsession with me is impressive, and makes me feel even slightly criminal. In reality, it's just someone editing a website that anyone can edit, champ. Merry Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karyn Devlin (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the account. They're editing from the same ranges as The abominable Wiki troll has historically edited from, including ones that are currently blocked due to extensive trolling. They are also editing as, ,  and , all now blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All tagged, closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I accidentally re-blocked all socks. Hope that's not a big problem.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

27 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Sockpuppet DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou had been involved in a dispute on The Undertaker over whether a table should be included in the "Championships and accomplishments" section; he was blocked on December 21. The table was restored after he was blocked and 82.132 then made this complaint on the talk page about it five days later. The next day new user Percival Pringle posted this similar complaint. This username is similar to User:Percifus Pringle, who is a previous blocked sockpuppet of Abominable. The IP comes from the same location as his other blocked IPs. LM2000 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2015 (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

 * Percival Pringle tagged and blocked indef per behavioral evidence and IP blocked three days for block evasion. Closing case for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

30 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Continued behavior started by confirmed sock User:DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou who was blocked on 12/21/15. This user created their account 24 April, made four edits, and then slept until 12/25/15 when they created their user and talk pages. Edits are primarily wrestling related, with focus on specific wrestlers common to both accounts. Both editors remove a specific section of Chris Jericho citing "relevance" here and  here  Neither editor capitalizes the beginnings of sentences in edit summaries, although do use punctuation,  Grammar, syntax quite similar.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Yup, it's me, that 100% constructive editor who keeps getting blocked for some reason. None of this means that ScrapIronIV's edit isn't utter garbage, though. Dr J Alvarez (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this comment is very similar to this one made by confirmed sockpuppet Goblinostic. clpo13(talk) 19:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Puppet is blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Similar edits to past socks, including tinkering with how best to quote praise of Gary Oldman (1, 2) and adding the same quote to the Jimmy Savile article (1, 2). Requesting checkuser sweep for likely-related accounts as there's a history of different accounts being used for different interests here. McGeddon (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2016 (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

 * Comparing the technical data of this account from one from December 2015 in the CU logs, I'd say it's . The accounts geolocate to the same location and uses the same ISP. There also was some logged out vandalism, which matches the sockmaster's MO. Given the behavioral similarities, I've blocked the account as a behaviorally linked account. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Restoring previous edit-warrior-sock 's Alec Baldwin quote to the Sid and Nancy article. (1, 2) was created four days after Locked from Inside was blocked. McGeddon (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Not exactly. I used an IP to simply restore a valid, cited quote that was removed by yourself from the Gary Oldman article (I live in Croatia; looking back through the "sockpuppet investigation" linked above, all IPs indicate that "The abominable Wiki troll" is a British-based user). Another unrelated user then restored other elements of your sweeping revert, again because the blocked user's edits were valid, and eliminated a duplicate citation and blatant fanboy hyperbole ("a skill for world accents", "Oldman's visibility as one of the foremost portrayers of villains in Hollywood became apparent"), as well as other silliness. You saw fit to twice revert these constructive modifications, pushing the article back to a clearly inferior state. I then set up an account (my first after 11 months an IP editor) to avoid the nonsensical "sockpuppet" accusation I'd been given as an IP, and tidied up the article again. I noticed you'd removed cited material from Sid and Nancy (a major Oldman film that has just been re-released), and restored it because it was, again, valid.

It seems that "The abominable Wiki troll" (who actually appears to be a constructive user inexplicably ostracised by the community) has evaded yourself and other users time and time again, and you respond by reverting to nonsense to prove some misguided "point". Seems like vandalism, not to mention petty. Mary Balke (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikitroll's previous sock User:Locked from inside was blocked for edit warring and criticised for talk page disruption before anyone had even flagged the account as a sock. Despite some useful edits, this user has behavioural issues which they're choosing to evade the consequences of by socking. (Note that responding to an SPI by saying that Wikitroll is actually making "constructive" edits and is just being mysteriously persecuted is a hallmark of past SPIs.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Note that responding to an SPI by saying that Wikitroll is actually making 'constructive' edits and is just being mysteriously persecuted is a hallmark of past SPIs."
 * Perhaps that's because other people have been confused as to why a seemingly constructive editor is the subject of such a huge manhunt. I wasn't aware of his/her misgivings, but their edits to the Gary Oldman and Sid and Nancy pages were undeniably constructive and fully sourced. Mary Balke (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Mary Balke is ✅ to .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Reed is a confirmed sockmaster of Warlock and Bunsen. Between those three accounts you have the usual interest in wrestling and British pop culture articles, including the usual dispute on ECW World Heavyweight Championship that goes back to 2009. When I informed Bbb23 that Reed is probably connected to the Wiki troll, my comments on their talk page were repeatedly modified by the UK IPs. After Bbb23's talk page got protected, Jango and BobRoberts came in to continue their modifications. LM2000 (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Guilty as charged: all of those IPs and accounts are me (TAWT, that is). The checkuser got my three active accounts, and I was able to dig up a couple old sleepers to put the boot in. I think I'll step away from Wiki now and give you guys (and myself) some peace. I actually made my first edit 10 years ago to the month via IP, before setting up my first account in January 2007 (lots of great, constructive work mixed with appalling vandalism). Today, at 51 years old, I really should get a life - or end it. Looking back at the legacy I've left, both on and off Wiki, I think I know which pathway is the most logical. Goodbye, and apologies for the stress caused over the years. 82.132.233.98 (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All accounts and IPs are already blocked. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  07:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Actions on Bill Goldberg indicate this account is likely a sock of Reed77 and potentially of an IP Vandal (which obviously can't be linked publicly). Edit summary at this link closely match that of the IPs. Some of the edit diffs have been revdel'd so I cannot link to them. Suspect this is related to this AN/I discussion -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk 23:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * and talked about extant versions as this sock did.-- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk  23:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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

There are similarities to confirmed socks as well. Bill Goldberg, obviously. Also, compare edit summaries: "Cite"     and "Rv vandalism". See also Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll/Archive. Those socks have engaged in long-term feuding with WikiProject Professional wrestling members, and I'm pretty sure Reed77 is just another incarnation of TAWT. Sro23 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * SierraHotelIndiaEchoLimaDelta is ✅ to previous socks. Thanks,, for the reminder. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (putting to checked status) Can you please retag the Reed77 socks in the same way I tagged SierraHotelIndiaEchoLimaDelta? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You tagged SierraHotelIndiaEchoLimaDelta as a scokmaster. Why would we tag all Reed77 socks as sockmasters?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea is that these accounts are CU-confirmed to each other but are proven socks of TAWT. If you can use that single template to do that, fine. I just used the two tags to communicate that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same narrow focus on particular paedophiles and "worst album ever" quotes for the same few musical artists as past socks (eg. 1, 2 and 3, 4). Requesting checkuser given the user's history of running parallel/sleeper socks (the Henman account is a couple of years old). McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

I'm afraid I don't follow. I think, I don't know, if you've got the right user. I changed the sales figures of a Babylon Zoo song with a strong source and I'm accused of vandalism. I made one edit of a worst of all time list, everything else is purely constructive.Henman Hill (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please extend Thu Ladz's block to indefinite. Sro23 (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would hate to see this SPI stuck open forever, so I'm just going to give my opinion here if that's any help.

I really cannot accept that Henman Hill and Thu Ladz *aren't* sockpuppets of The abominable Wiki troll. That an unrelated sockmaster would coincidentally take interest in the same sometimes extremely obscure articles or topic areas as TAWT is too much for me to believe, despite what CU says. I also strongly agree with McGeddon that Quiggazi is another sock, given the Suede focus, also their edit summaries often contain specific TAWT characteristics (it's always "cites"). I have no opinion of TheEmperior other than they appear to be a VOA and it's probably for the better they were blocked indef. However, nothing about Humorideas and Jlunke2 make me suspect sockpuppetry. Humorideas is (was) a long-term user who has been editing consistently for years; I wonder if CU made a mistake this time. As for these, I'm pretty sure that was the "real" abominable Wiki troll trolling, I don't think that was Humorideas. Same with Jlunke2; the account is older than even TAWT, and Jlunke2's main area of interest appears to be rap, not Britpop. I think a block of Jlunke2 would be inappropriate. Sro23 (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Henman Hill is ❌ to The abominable Wiki troll.
 * Group 1 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Group 2 – the following accounts are to Group 2 but :
 * The two behavioral focuses of the Group 1 accounts appear to be abnormal psychology and song-related articles. The Group 2 accounts are interested only in song-related articles, but the behavioral analysis needs to be more nuanced to justify blocking them.
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts in Group 1 without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good thing I have others checking up on me. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For a behavioral link: as well as the music-related edits and recurring focus on Suede, User:Quiggazi shares a specific interest of two past socks in the previous RE teaching career of an obscure Scottish football referee: 1, 2, 3. --McGeddon (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The two behavioral focuses of the Group 1 accounts appear to be abnormal psychology and song-related articles. The Group 2 accounts are interested only in song-related articles, but the behavioral analysis needs to be more nuanced to justify blocking them.
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts in Group 1 without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good thing I have others checking up on me. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For a behavioral link: as well as the music-related edits and recurring focus on Suede, User:Quiggazi shares a specific interest of two past socks in the previous RE teaching career of an obscure Scottish football referee: 1, 2, 3. --McGeddon (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good thing I have others checking up on me. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For a behavioral link: as well as the music-related edits and recurring focus on Suede, User:Quiggazi shares a specific interest of two past socks in the previous RE teaching career of an obscure Scottish football referee: 1, 2, 3. --McGeddon (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged all. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 16:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

See edits to Psychopathy Checklist and the article's talk page Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  23:36, 21 December 2016 (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

 * . GABgab 01:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Linguist Moi?  Moi.  14:26, 22 December 2016 (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
IP already blocked. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

To be clear, I'm not asking for any further action be taken against the IP's. I simply want to help establish the range I believe TAWT is currently using to edit. Per the archive of this SPI, both Gary Oldman and List of music considered the worst have a long history of being targets by this sockmaster (just a couple diffs as an example: ). In short, both IP's are in the same range, both complain about WP:OWN in the same vein when reverted, I explain it a lot better here and here. There are more edits to similar pages by IP's in the same range, I will not list them all. I came across the two accounts while going through that range's contributions. There's intersection with socks:        , a shared interest in Britpop as always, and similar edit summaries. CU requested because almost every time sleepers are found. Sro23 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2017 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Intersection with no less than five sockpuppets across nearly every article this new user has changed so far. I prefer not to fully explain why per WP:BEANS, but their userspace edits and edit summaries make it obvious this is TAWT. Request CU because nearly every time sleepers are discovered. Sro23 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's any help, another recently blocked sock was User:SantinoBrandy. Sro23 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Yes, it's me, and again, my editing is 100% constructive. Anyone care to give me a reason as to why I continue to be blocked? Especially when the person who made this latest report welcomed me and thanked me for my edits. Cheers. NativeSonovan (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - I'm way too tired to be doing a checkuser for sleepers at this hour, but endorse a sleeper check.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 09:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some logged out edits, but unusually, . Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any sleepers either. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like we're good. Closing. GABgab 22:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

High overlap with past socks (again):        as well as this edit which directly restores what a sockpuppet added. Sro23 (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Again, all well-referenced, constructive work. What do these reports achieve other than me being blocked, recent edits reverted and articles rolled back to inferior states so "good" editors can somehow "win"? It's the encyclopedia that loses every time. GretzkyCC (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * per the above admission. Sam Walton (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ GretzkyCC is another sock. - Mailer Diablo 09:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Retagged, closing. GABgab 13:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The evidence is all located in the histories of each page this user has changed. Samples:. It's not just sheer overlap, it's also similarity among edit summaries. For example, "tidy", "prose" , "split" , "dead link" , etc. Sro23 (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2017 (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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Sigh. User made 10 dummy edits in order to become autoconfirmed to revert User:Eliken's contributions to John Cena. Eliken is a sock of User:Mangoeater1000. These two sockmasters have edit warred with each other before, most notably on Bill Goldberg so the the article had to be EC protected. Sro23 (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm removing WP:PUFF by a blocked user. Sro23 is restoring it. BrotherBlu (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2017 (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
BrotherBlu is ✅ to. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This is my latest account, but after this warm welcome I feel quite bad and admitting to block evasion will alleviate the guilt. Cheers. TeflonJim (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2017 (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

 * Blocked per self request. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Reinstated sock's changes to Chris Benoit. Sro23 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

These two edits are not the same. Merzkadu (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ + . Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Making the same reversions on Chris Benoit. Sro23 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2017 (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
Blocked as obvious sock. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

WP:DUCK. Compare to IP sock 5.64.203.136:  Sro23 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like things have been taken care of at Sockpuppet investigations/Christlim. This could probably just be closed. Sro23 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Last night, and  vandalized User talk:WarMachineWildThing, a favorite target of TAWT. Each mentioned "Jim Whelmby" in their posts and admitted to being TAWT. These three accounts have been blocked for vandalism but should also be tagged as socks.LM2000 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Tags applied and closing.

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Restoring the same WP:EASTEREGG links on Capricorn One as a previous sockpuppet. Sro23 (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Added another WP:DUCK. Please check for any sleepers because this troll recently admitted to me he has numerous. Sro23 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Yup, both TAWT. Checkuser will likely throw up one further account, but I expect a great many to remain unidentified. Molarland (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

, see contribs. Murph 9000 (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2017 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - To see if getting a rangeblock is possible. He's proving to be quite active today.
 * I can't say how effective it'll be, but the range these accounts are on has been blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing.

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Noticed this user intersecting with and using similar edit summaries to socks, especially User:Quiggazi. As usual, please look for any sleepers Sro23 (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Added Lisabeaton. TAWT really seems to have a thing for Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and will always refer to it as "OMD". Along comes this new account: Sro23 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

You took a few hours to get the si rolling Sro. It seems you were taken aback at my 100% constructive edits that you relented initially only to give in to WP:WIN, the most important facet of Wikipedia culture. Still, although we will always butt heads here, the game of cat and mouse instills some fun into the rivalry.Larkhall Lynch (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've given up the battle at T in the Park. It is on the record though that the block evasion rule is inconsistent. It's a shame that wiki tries to censor anything that seems out of the ordinary despite being backed up by strong sources.Larkhall Lynch (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ plus:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark seems to be TAWT's fav band. This new account has intersection with past socks, and this bit of vandalism basically confirms it is TAWT. See the history of Ned (Scottish) for proof. As usual please check for any more socks I may have missed. Sro23 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I admit to being TAWT. Besides the Human League stuff, I've been making "obviously helpful changes" (WP:BANREVERT). Nutrition0 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Compare to last sock. and please check for sleepers. Sro23 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Added 94.197.120.127 per WP:DUCK. Sro23 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Account has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet, and the IP has been blocked temporarily for block evasion.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's confirmed. I can't be of much help stopping him for now though. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing. It looks like we've stopped tagging. GABgab 22:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The edit summaries and fixation on User:Mangoeater1000 basically confirm this is a sockpuppet. . As usual please check for any sleepers as this account is actually several days old. Sro23 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2017 (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
✅. No other accounts seen. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This sockmaster is known for his fixation on Gary Oldman. Compare the IP's attempt to insert POV puffery into the article with this confirmed sock:  I strongly believe the IP's he's using are proxies. Also could someone please protect Gary Oldman, thank you. Sro23 (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2017 (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
Range blocked for a month. Materialscientist protected the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The first two for sure are socks, finishing/adding on to what socks in the past have started. At the very least they seem to be working together. KrytenK I definitely am less certain. New user and the only main contribution is to Stephen Daisley (journalist), and there is some overlap with sock User:ML52EW. Sro23 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just added another WP:DUCK. Sro23 (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" – suggests that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics.

Yup, habitual characteristics in this case involve well-cited constructive edits. Nothing libellous, abusive or promotional. It's a shame there's such an outcry when constructive edits are made to what the retired McGeddon, calls, "an obscure 90s band."Geddun (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other but otherwise ❌:
 * Blocked and tagged the first group and blocked the second group without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't seriously believe that group 2 is completely separate. Dual-tagged, closing. GABgab 21:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other but otherwise ❌:
 * Blocked and tagged the first group and blocked the second group without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't seriously believe that group 2 is completely separate. Dual-tagged, closing. GABgab 21:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the first group and blocked the second group without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't seriously believe that group 2 is completely separate. Dual-tagged, closing. GABgab 21:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Edit warrior currently blocked for 24 hours who also likes an Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark song. Removes "banned sources per WP:PW/RS the same way this IP sock did on a different article. The interest in ghosts is also not new:  Sro23 (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2017 (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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I know that this user was already blocked, but based on his edits  Nickag 989 talk 18:20, 10 July 2017 (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

 * Already blocked. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  06:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

See User talk:EdJohnston#Psychonot. In this talk thread User:Psychonot, who is an apparent sock of User:Mangoeater1000 and an IP who is an apparent sock of User:The abominable Wiki troll have been accusing each other of sockpuppetry. At present I'm more convinced of the evidence against the latter so I'm thinking of going ahead with a /64 block of Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600::/64 for three months. So why reopen the sock case? Because it's the first time I see an IPv6 being mentioned as a sock of this editor and not IPv4, and on the off chance that any admin disagrees. Recently I've noticed User:Oshwah and User:JamesBWatson issuing some blocks for evasion that I assume are referring to this guy. (Oshwah: here and JamesBWatson here). User: NinjaRobotPirate has previously blocked the /64 I listed above back in June. (Not to mention Bbb23 further back). There is no obvious reason for running a checkuser. But perhaps someone who reads this will have an opinion on whether the evidence is persuasive that User:Psychonot is a sock of Mangoeater1000. In that case it might be helpful for me to create a separate SPI report on Psychonot, for which a CU would be doable if it is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Since EdJohnston has mentioned me, I will say a little about what I know in connection with this. I believe that the block I placed on the 185.51.229.0/24 range was a result of my investigations of an unblock request at User talk:194.28.124.52. I became 100% convinced that 194.28.124.52 was being used to evade blocks on other IP addresses, and well over 90% convinced that it was also evading blocks on one or more accounts, such as The abominable Wiki troll. 194.28.124.52 geolocates to Great Britain, whereas the 185.51.229.x range is from the United States, which at first led me to doubt that it was the same person. However, further investigation showed that whatismyipaddress.com and ipaddress.my give 185.51.229.x IP addresses as geolocating to the United States (New York for whatismyipaddress.com and Florida for ipaddress.my) whereas iplocation.truevue.org and www.countryipblocks.net both give them as coming from the Czech republic. I guess that means that it must be a proxy, VPN or something similar, though I have not been able to find any further confirmation. The block-evading IP editor has repeatedly, from different IP addresses, demanded a CheckUser to show that he or she is not evading blocks. Experience indicates that doing that is a reliable indicator that the person is evading blocks or doing other sockpuppetry, is using some kind of proxy, VPN, or whatever, and is keen to have a CheckUser to find that the IP addresses are different, in the naive belief that we are stupid enough to think that proves it can't be the same person. I don't know where the IPv6 range that EdJohnston mentioned fits in. A very quick look at the editing history is enough to arouse suspicions, but it doesn't tell me anything specific. However, no doubt Ed has done a more thorough check of it. The IPv6 range and 194.28.124.52 both geolocate to Great Britain, as do IP addresses previously believed to have been used by The abominable Wiki troll. (It is pretty well never possible to pin British IPs down at all precisely, because of the way British ISPs and phone networks work. The IP address I am editing from shows up as being in a totally different city than where I really am, hundreds of miles away.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2017 (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

 * That IPv6 range block I did was a while ago. I feel a bit out of practice in identifying TAWT socks, but, yeah, that looks like it's still him.  If you want an expert, that would be, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Both ranges are blocked, one by me, one by JBW., , and have been blocked as probable Mangoeater1000 socks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, and  are ✅ to . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is probably worth putting TAWT sock tags on Leoni98 and Zostz. We should have Mangoeater1000 sock tags on User:Pretty sure that and User:Rajendra Kumar Saha. Otherwise, this has been handled. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Persistent WP:PUFF on Gary Oldman plus high intersection with known past sockpuppets - see. Request CU because sleepers are found nearly every time. Sro23 (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Added Naard who has been reinstating Ever Crumbling's edits. Sro23 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2017 (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 confirmation and sleepers. Thanks, GABgab 02:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, I chose to run CU on this one because I thought it would be easy. It wasn't.


 * All ✅ to each other:
 * I don't know what's going on here, and I leave it up to someone else to decide what to do about this. It's conceivable that this isn't what it looks like.
 * ✅ to each other and blocked:
 * is using proxies, but he's ✅ from and .  Naard made a lot of logged-out edits, but I don't see any obvious sleepers.
 * The first confirmed group and the second confirmed group are to TAWT based on geolocation, but you might want to get a second opinion.  I did this after being awake for a very long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - These are all (yes, all) The abominable Wiki troll. He is known for creating this many accounts. Almost every single account has a very simple behavioral quirk connecting them to TAWT, which I'm not going to say here because he undoubtedly reads this, but if you would like to know what it is feel free to email me. Almost every sock will as one of their first edits create a user/user talk page with User talk or sometimes busy (see    ). Otherwise there are a couple users that lack this behavioral tell, but they overlap with either the accounts listed here or a blocked TAWT sock, so I'm convinced this is all him. Please block socks. Sro23 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that was created by  Sro23 (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All now . GABgab 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, it looks like I overlooked some more ✅ socks to the first group:
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's going on here, and I leave it up to someone else to decide what to do about this. It's conceivable that this isn't what it looks like.
 * ✅ to each other and blocked:
 * is using proxies, but he's ✅ from and .  Naard made a lot of logged-out edits, but I don't see any obvious sleepers.
 * The first confirmed group and the second confirmed group are to TAWT based on geolocation, but you might want to get a second opinion.  I did this after being awake for a very long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - These are all (yes, all) The abominable Wiki troll. He is known for creating this many accounts. Almost every single account has a very simple behavioral quirk connecting them to TAWT, which I'm not going to say here because he undoubtedly reads this, but if you would like to know what it is feel free to email me. Almost every sock will as one of their first edits create a user/user talk page with User talk or sometimes busy (see    ). Otherwise there are a couple users that lack this behavioral tell, but they overlap with either the accounts listed here or a blocked TAWT sock, so I'm convinced this is all him. Please block socks. Sro23 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that was created by  Sro23 (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All now . GABgab 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, it looks like I overlooked some more ✅ socks to the first group:
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's going on here, and I leave it up to someone else to decide what to do about this. It's conceivable that this isn't what it looks like.
 * ✅ to each other and blocked:
 * is using proxies, but he's ✅ from and .  Naard made a lot of logged-out edits, but I don't see any obvious sleepers.
 * The first confirmed group and the second confirmed group are to TAWT based on geolocation, but you might want to get a second opinion.  I did this after being awake for a very long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - These are all (yes, all) The abominable Wiki troll. He is known for creating this many accounts. Almost every single account has a very simple behavioral quirk connecting them to TAWT, which I'm not going to say here because he undoubtedly reads this, but if you would like to know what it is feel free to email me. Almost every sock will as one of their first edits create a user/user talk page with User talk or sometimes busy (see    ). Otherwise there are a couple users that lack this behavioral tell, but they overlap with either the accounts listed here or a blocked TAWT sock, so I'm convinced this is all him. Please block socks. Sro23 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that was created by  Sro23 (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All now . GABgab 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, it looks like I overlooked some more ✅ socks to the first group:
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's going on here, and I leave it up to someone else to decide what to do about this. It's conceivable that this isn't what it looks like.
 * ✅ to each other and blocked:
 * is using proxies, but he's ✅ from and .  Naard made a lot of logged-out edits, but I don't see any obvious sleepers.
 * The first confirmed group and the second confirmed group are to TAWT based on geolocation, but you might want to get a second opinion.  I did this after being awake for a very long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - These are all (yes, all) The abominable Wiki troll. He is known for creating this many accounts. Almost every single account has a very simple behavioral quirk connecting them to TAWT, which I'm not going to say here because he undoubtedly reads this, but if you would like to know what it is feel free to email me. Almost every sock will as one of their first edits create a user/user talk page with User talk or sometimes busy (see    ). Otherwise there are a couple users that lack this behavioral tell, but they overlap with either the accounts listed here or a blocked TAWT sock, so I'm convinced this is all him. Please block socks. Sro23 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that was created by  Sro23 (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All now . GABgab 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, it looks like I overlooked some more ✅ socks to the first group:
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The first confirmed group and the second confirmed group are to TAWT based on geolocation, but you might want to get a second opinion.  I did this after being awake for a very long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - These are all (yes, all) The abominable Wiki troll. He is known for creating this many accounts. Almost every single account has a very simple behavioral quirk connecting them to TAWT, which I'm not going to say here because he undoubtedly reads this, but if you would like to know what it is feel free to email me. Almost every sock will as one of their first edits create a user/user talk page with User talk or sometimes busy (see    ). Otherwise there are a couple users that lack this behavioral tell, but they overlap with either the accounts listed here or a blocked TAWT sock, so I'm convinced this is all him. Please block socks. Sro23 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that was created by  Sro23 (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All now . GABgab 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, it looks like I overlooked some more ✅ socks to the first group:
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going through these and blocking them as cu-blocked, but it looks like I was a little too slow and GAB blocked a few before me. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess it doesn't matter. I was going to do a rather complicated series of "confirmed to the oldest account in the first group, and a suspected sock of TAWT" but that's probably not necessary.  I'm tired and overthinking things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

WP:DUCK restoring the same info on T in the Park. Sro23 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2017 (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

 * Now . GABgab 15:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

See the diff in the Triple H article   Nickag989 talk 15:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

How absurd: I merely reverted one instance of unexplained blanking at Triple H. By the way, logged out IPs and the account User:Tombstoneride have strangely emerged to push the agendas of Nickag989 (the user making this report) at both AJ Styles and Triple H. Very concerning. Truganini (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Please compare to past socks and look for sleepers. Sro23 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * to past socks due to proxy usage but the following are ✅ to each other:
 * as confirmed. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * as confirmed. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * as confirmed. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * as confirmed. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

High crossover with sockpuppets on low-traffic pages. ;  ;  ;   etc. Sro23 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2017 (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

 * - Endorsing own request, please look for missed accounts and block the proxy/webhost he's using if possible, lately I've been noticing a lot of logged-out editing. Sro23 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ and tagged. No other accounts seen. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Completely new user with a determination (and justification in the edit summary) to remove mentions of the United States Championship from the opening paragraph of AJ Styles identical to that of a previously banned sock. Followed by immediately resorting to personal attacks, as in common with all the recent socks. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 23:07, 12 January 2018 (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

 * - per evidence presented. Please block IP for 3 days. Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User claims not to be Thefanofwwe, a TAWT sock, yet has... that username, and the WWE userboxen.

Fish, barrel, quack. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me &#124; contribs 03:16, 28 February 2018 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  05:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - This is definitely User:Thefanofwwe evading their block (who I believe was erroneously tagged as a TAWT sock). Regardless, please indef.  Sro23 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No tags. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account, same old interest in WP:PW and similar style of edit summaries. Note extensive overlap with past sockpuppets, I could go on.

User:Bainstable has already been blocked based on behavioral evidence. Please compare to the most recently blocked sock User:Weepin'. Sro23 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

This should be interesting, as I've been more careful this time. I expect checkuser to find three, possibly four socks, and fail on a bunch more. Looking forward to the result. All the best. Amoeni (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorsing own request. Please check for sleepers. Sro23 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. No other accounts seen.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:57, 16 September 2018 (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
Accounts ✅ to. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that Amoeni was itself confirmed; these three should be considered confirmed as well. Declining tags, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_SmackDown_1000&oldid=prev&diff=882658374&diffmode=source

Identical behavior to blocked sock User:TheUltamateBoss3900. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 February 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
✅ to previous blocked socks. Blocked without tags. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Long term obsession with Gary Oldman, List of music considered the worst, various Britpop groups, etc. For a long time now, TAWT socks have been fighting to keep the "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club" entry in the List of music considered the worst article. Both Noelrock, but especially Micky Moats have been advocating for this. If that wasn't enough, here's just a sample of more intersection with socks:. Also noting for the record the IP range currently being used for socking:. Coolburts has edited Gary Oldman and demonstrates even more crossover with previous sockpuppets. Sro23 (talk) 07:31, 15 July 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

 * - Endorsing own request. Please compare the accounts and look for any more I've missed. Sro23 (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus:
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)