Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
Based on the edit pattern, it is possible that this IP is used for the block evasion by user:HughD. That IP has made 35 edits to ExxonMobil climate change controversy which was heavily edited (370 edits) by HughD. Although most of edits are adding links etc, some of edits follows style of HughD ( [1], [2]), including edit summaries. In addition, there is quite significant number of pages which are edited by both. IP has edited in times when HughD was/has been blocked. Beagel ( talk) 20:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Beagel ( talk) 20:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Attempting to provide a diff vs diff here: HughD vs the IP. May be insufficient here. NasssaNser ( talk/ edits) 02:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
HughD's account is currently blocked for 6 months [ [3]]
104.177.49.8 and 64.107.1.150, - Corvette Leaf Spring article edits
107.77.207.140 and 50.196.233.29 - Eddie Eagle article edits
The reasons why I'm suspicious, first the IP seems to be targeting article's I'm working with (exclusively or almost exclusively edits an article I'm involved with) and the IP editor is from Chicago (HughD's location). Second, the edit pattern is very similar. A series of edits done back to back rather than combining multiple edits into one larger change. The edit summaries fit the same verb-subject pattern and use the same abbreviations. Certainly IP editors who seem comfortable calling guideline type pages ("WP:ELDUP rem ext link used as source") seem to be experienced editor working while logged off. The way the IPs approached each topic also fit past patterns. Eddie Eagle is a politically loaded topic so the edits focused on flooding the article subject with negative material without any talk page comments. In the case of the more technical Corvette suspension article the editor scours the article for minor issues the tags them as a way to suggest the entire article should be discounted.
HughD is currently blocked (6 month that will lift later this month). Editing via an IP would be a violation of that block.
As an example of HughD's edit summaries please review the Pinto article edit summaries: [ [4]] (I was unable to include a list of sample edit summaries here. Please look at the March 3rd edits between 07:48 and 20:03 as examples.
I know it isn't rock solid evidence but I think the pattern of behavior is consistent, the IP location is correct and we are dealing with an editor who is about to come off a 6 month block (and still as two indef topic bans). Springee ( talk) 03:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Richwales:, I had assumed this was already closed by now. Based on another editor's suggestion I contacted @ Wordsmith:[ [6]] regarding the IP hounding. I added some additional evidence in late January (about half way down the discussion). The additional evidence were a series of edits with comments and phrasing that match those of HughD (diffs included). I also noted that @ DoRD: blocked an Amazon IP editor in December [ [7]]. I found this by looking at a list of articles I've edited over the years. In December we had yet another case of an Amazon IP visiting a very low traffic article I was involved with. The Amazon IP visits are still on going. Thanks Springee ( talk) 02:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@ Springee: is deleting otherwise reasonable talk page comments by IPs, apparently on the basis that the IP has been determined to be a banned editor. [8] [9] [10] If the IP editor is actually banned then that's justifiable, but I don't see that determination here. Could a clerk or checkuser finalize this filing so that the IP's status is clear? Felsic2 ( talk) 01:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't publicly disclose the IPs of named accounts. CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Clerk note: Any more comments on this case? As it stands, I'm inclined to close it as inconclusive — anyone who disagrees, please speak up. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
35.165.116.166 is using typical HughD boiler plate comments. We have high praise for those whom he agrees with,
Examples of similar effusive thanking those who agree with his POV.
The quote ends with my HughD hyperbole. As examples of similar phrasing from HughD (in addition to the "thank yous above):
A few more "colleague" examples here [ [22]].
Examples of the IPs using similar language from the recent Smith and Wesson talk page:
Note the use of "our" when describing Wiki articles or projects
In the GM Chapter 11 posting [ [34]] IP 35.165 uses a typical HughD practice of including many (excessive) hyperlinks in a talk post. [ [35]].
IP 13.112.55.43 specifically references a previous edit of mine[ [36]]. HughD was involved in the talk discussion related to that edit.[ [37]]
Examples of similar effusive thanking those who agree with his POV.
The quote ends with my HughD hyperbole. As examples of similar phrasing from HughD (in addition to the "thank yous above):
A few more "colleague" examples here [ [42]].
The first post of one of the IPs was a clearly formated RfC. Here are similar RfCs HughD has created [ [43]], [ [44]], [ [45]], [ [46]], [ [47]], [ [48]]. Springee ( talk) 03:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Note that this IP started prior to the lifting of his edit block (Dec 28th) and includes topics that are political in nature (a violation of his post 1932 US politics, broadly construed, topic ban. This is in addition to be disruptive by editing under multiple IPs and after several of the IPs were blocked. The GM bankruptcy topic[ [49]], the GM street car scandal[ [50]] and the discussion of guns and crime [ [51]] seem like they are very much walking on US politics since all have heavy government involvement. Also, this edit to an article HughD was pushing through to GA status is clearly covered by his climate change topic ban [ [52]].
I will add additional reports to cover the remaining IPs. 52.56.71.70, 52.56.94.111, 52.56.78.102, 52.56.96.153, 52.56.89.190, 52.56.88.64, 52.56.100.5, 52.56.102.194, 52.56.102.125, 52.67.203.233, 52.67.216.109, 52.56.34.121, 13.124.3.28, 34.207.97.139, 52.14.85.243, 52.14.16.107, 13.112.65.233, 34.207.97.139, 34.251.129.57, 13.124.3.28, 34.207.97.139, 52.56.171.93, 52.56.140.99 Springee ( talk) 03:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Update A new Chicago based IP is restoring edits made me the Amazon IP to the Smith and Wesson MP15 article. [[ /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/162.17.34.129]]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Additional IPs related to the investigation above Springee ( talk) 03:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Additional IPs related to report above Springee ( talk) 03:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@ Bbb23:, I would like to ask that a determination be made if this is in fact HughD. Not all of the Amazon IPs have been blocked and more importantly, the IP editor just comes up with new ones each time the old ones are blocked. Also, the IP editor has used several non-Amazon IPs (both a while back as well as just a few days back [ [55]] ). If this is HughD then the editor has violated both his edit block as well as his topic block. The Wordsmith, one of the admins who sanctioned HughD, has now twice said he thinks this is HughD [ [56]], [ [57]]. Given the level of disruption caused by the IP shifting editor and the behavior evidence, please reconsider closing without a decision. Springee ( talk) 16:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Although there are far too many IPs listed in this report and two reports above, it appears that they are all range-blocked or too old. Closing all.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Article is Parking crater, full history
user:Cajunerich, user:Rindslicit all suddenly appeared, roughly single-purpose accounts with subject overlap with a rather prolific blocked sock-user, user:HughD.
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Moicgucci
https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Cajunerich Note this is supposedly from Europe. (He has since left this explanation, which, barring something odd coming up here, is quite plausible.
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Rindslicit
(There are very few edits; their contribution lists above contain all the relevant difs, and nothing else.) Anmccaff ( talk) 17:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@ Anmccaff: You've demonstrated that the three suspected puppets are interested in the same thing, but you haven't presented any evidence other your say-so ("subject overlap with a rather prolific blocked sock-user") that these three accounts are connected to the master.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
HughD was indef banned from conservative politics and envirnomental topics [ [58]], then blocked for 6 months for violating that ban [ [59]]. After that HughD took to herrasing edits via IP addresses. This was discussed as part of SPIs as well as with admins [ [60]], [ [61]] and resulted in an indef block of HughD [ [62]] which has been violated as late as Sept 3rd. Given the history of IP sock edits, avoiding the block by creating a new account seems reasonable.
EC has only worked on a few topics but all are related to conservative politics and the environment. The two accounts have a significant overlap given EC's narrow list of topics.
The editor is "new" (Aug 18th) yet clearly acts like an experienced editor. The first talk page edits are project links (Aug 29th [ [63]]) shortly followed by quoting Wiki guidelines ([ [64]], [ [65]]) and commenting on requests for adminship (Sept 18th [ [66]], Aug 31[ [67]]). These sorts of edits suggest an editor who has been around for quite some time. The editor's talk page has been started with the blue "+template" with in the first few edits of the account [ [68]]. Many of the blocked HughD IP addresses did the same [ [69]], [ [70]], [ [71]]).
Both editors use a blitz style of edits where many changes are made via a number of small edits rather than a few larger ones. Example with HughD [ [72]] (and a comment about it [ [73]]) and ECarlisle [ [74]], almost 200 edits since Oct 12th. The commenting style is also very similar between the two sets of edits.
The new editor has received two edit related warnings [ [75]], [ [76]]. Odd that a new editor wasn't phased by such warnings and immediately removed them.
The talk page comments of the two accounts are very similar as is the formatting of proposed changes. Example of formatted argument from HughD [ [77]] and [ [78]]. Examples from ECarlisle[ [79]], [ [80]], [ [81]] and here [ [82]]. Note that this level of formatting was used less than 3 weeks after joining. This is not a new editor!
ECarlisle used a template created by HughD 2 years ago,
Template:ProPublicaNonprofitExplorer [
[83]][
[84]] and used exclusively by HughD. A history of its use (updated Oct 1, 2017) shows 25 examples of use [
[85]]. Clicking through to the examples of use, only one example was not placed by the HughD account. It ([
[86]]) was placed by one of the large number of Amazon IP's that were blocked during HughD's anonymous harassment campaign since the HughD account was blocked. Earlier today ECarlisle used the template [
[87] ECarlisle has used the template at least four times in October.[
[88]][
[89]][
[90]][
[91]]
Upon request I can find text examples that show similar phrasing and comments. Springee ( talk) 18:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Update: ECarlisle seems to have gone dark since this SPI was posted to EC's talk page. EC has posted ~730 times, at least once per day, since Sept 17th and was active just 10 minutes before a notice of this investigation was posted to EC's talk page (last post 18:18 Oct 21 [ [92]], posting of notice 18:28 Oct 21 [ [93]]). Since then, nothing for over 24 hours. Again this seems like suspicious behavior. Springee ( talk) 01:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Update to add PerfectF account name. New editor account as of today (Oct 24th). Immediately comments on Ford Pinto GA review. Complaints here [
[94]] and [
[95]] are the same arguments made by HughD sock IPs [
[96]],[
[97]]
Springee (
talk)
00:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Behavioral, based on comments at Talk:Ford Pinto/GA1 that resemble previous IP contributions attributed to HughD. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Springee updated the earlier filing while I was adding this one. Clerks should feel free to combine/archive as necessary. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This account is very recent, and does the type of edits that a recently blocked sockpuppet ECarlisle used to do. The edits are comprehensive, well-sourced and well-written on environmental matters, which is unusual on politicians' pages. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I think there many be merit to the concerns above. For example the new editor added content about life time environmental score ( had a lifetime score of 6% on the National Environmental Scorecard of the League of Conservation Voters) to several articles [ [98]],[ [99]],[ [100]],[ [101]]. The sock ECarlisle added similar content [ [102]], [ [103]], [ [104]], [ [105]], [ [106]]
I would also add PeopleLikeMe ( talk · contribs) as a possible HughD sock. The editor also added the "lifetime score of _" content from above [ [107]]. The editor's other edits related to the Chrysler article where HughD had been generally harassing the article based on my involvement. The material PLM restored [ [108]] was the subject of a RfC that HughD created [ [109]] and content said user added in late March 2016. I will note PeopleLikeMe seems to be a dead account but I found it while looked for the "lifetime" content above.
Both seem like clear socks based on WP:DUCK. Springee ( talk) 16:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a WP:QUACK situation. One of ANElk's first edits was this edit to the Scott Pruitt page. This edit added the exact same material that a previous sock of HughD, ECarlise, had originally added to the article before it was reverted due to the socking. See this series of diffs. The access dates for the citations are even the same (October 16), meaning this "new" editor apparently just copied and pasted the older sock's edits. ANElk's very first edits to Wikipedia were also to add the templates {userpage} and {usertalk}, which is a trademark of HughD socks. Marquardtika ( talk) 01:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
The new suspected sock is X1\ ( talk · contribs). The other accounts are blocked HughD socks. These accounts were all created late summer/fall of 2017. X\1 was created in August. The user account was started with the same start pages HughD used with his recent IP and sock accounts. Like HughD's previous sock accounts we have a "new" editor who immediately knows how to navigate wikipedia editing and is working on templates and tags in less than 48 hours. The editor, like HughD is making a large number of edits per day though not not as single article focused as HughD.
Editor interaction log between HughD and X1\[ [110]] shows a lot of articles in common. The focus is on climate change and politics. Edits include HughD hot topics like the Koch bothers.
HughD created a Propublica template (evidence here [ [111]]). As I mentioned in a previous investigation it was only used by HughD, known HughD socks and an IP account suspected of being a HughD sock. Here is X1\ editing a propublica template entry [ [112]]
HughD had a Chicago related interst. X1\ has edited the Chicago Time article (note, it was a minor edit) [ [113]].
Restored material [ [114]] added by a block IP suspected of being a HughD sock [ [115]]. The IP's added material was similar to the material HughD added to the article. Springee ( talk) 15:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Please check against previously blocked socks. HughD's account is too old for checking against recent socks.
X1\'s edit pattern does suggest a strong understanding of Wikipedia for a new account but the inconclusive check user and the reply here is enough to convince me this isn't yet another HughD sock. Springee ( talk) 22:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Please be advised that User talk:X1\ asked for admin help about this, and I advised them to either post here or at WT:SPI. Hopefully, you will get input from them before closing this. — Maile ( talk) 00:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Sigh... IMAParent joined Wikipedia on the 15th (just 2 days ago). Not surprising that articles related to AR-15's saw a flood of new editors after the recent crime in Florida. However, this editor, like many of HughD's previous socks seems to immediately know how to do things around here. On the first day the editor created their blank user and talk page [ [117]]. The edit summaries are very polished for a new editor. They also read a lot like those HughD (and his socks) used. Consider these examples: From the new editor:
From HughD: From Aug 21st 2015, [ [118]]
Same source, June 20th 2015: "swap sentence order for flow"
From Oct 21 2015, [ [119]]
From 27-28th April 2016: [ [120]]
HughD didn't edit gun related articles but his IP socks appeared at the Ruger Mini-14 and Smith & Wesson M&P15 pages (I've noted these in the previous IP sock complaints).
Consider this long post by the current editor to the talk page [ [121]] It ends with the phrase:
This sounds very much like some of HughD's (or sock's) posts. It was proceeded by a dump of sources. Here is a similar example where a HughD sock dumps sources into a GA discussion: [ [122]] <-- expand the collapsed section to see the FPrefect edits
An IP sock in the Smith & Wesson M&P15 article: [ [123]]
I think this, and the long history of this editor's use of socks, should justify a check user review.
Thank you. Springee ( talk) 03:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is a very new editor but HughD has already been spotted twice recently. IMAParent was just blocked. @ Berean Hunter: blocked Rusty5681 ( talk · contribs) as a sock yesterday.
New starts off with an edit that reads very much like a one of HughD's self professing statements. Certainly no new editor is going to think to edit a project page off the bat. I understand this is weaker evidence but given the repetitive nature of this editor I'm suspicious. Springee ( talk) 17:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 17:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
SPA at AR-15 article, same as previous sock, IMAParent. Similar edits. Similar edit tags (not the tags you would expect from a new member). Setup user talk page and home page redirect as IMAParent sock. As with the last sock, the strength of the evidence isn't overly strong but this blocked user has added several known socks in the last two weeks. Example of editors adding same material: [ [124]], [ [125]]. Washington Post article by Vitkovskaya. Springee ( talk) 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Edits similar to Rusty5681 ( talk · contribs) blocked by @ Berean Hunter:. Springee ( talk) 20:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Dlash certainly fits some of the behavioral profiles. Springee ( talk) 23:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Berean Hunter:. And Dlash is off to the races. Same scope of articles. Springee ( talk) 18:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The paint hasn't even dried on the last indef unblock. Account is 2 days old and at the same article as Dlash et al. Springee ( talk) 22:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 22:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@ NeilN: @ Berean Hunter:, would you please apply a page protection while you're at it? Springee ( talk) 22:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This account first posted 2 hours after Dlash. Like Dlash the first actions were creating talk and home pages, presumably so those links aren't red and thus suggest a new user. Next is a series of meaningless edits to get over some threshold of edits before diving into the controversial edits. Springee ( talk) 03:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
New account, like the past few it was started by establishing user page and talk page (no red links). The only thing this new user has done is promote a sandbox article to a gun related essay. How would a new user know about this essay from around 2016? The IP socks above were involved in some of the articles Felsic2 was working on (AR-15 and other gun related articles). @ NeilN: was involved with blocking the IP and responding to Felsic2's questions about the IP editor. Springee ( talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Similar behavior as recent socks. New editor, SPA, starts by creating a talk page and a user page that redirects to talk page. Edit summaries are similar. This editor doesn't overlap previous articles but does overlap gun politics. Like HughD, overcites and includes quotes in the references. Springee ( talk) 01:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 01:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Back again. Same articles as last blocked editor. Same behavior when establishing account. Springee ( talk) 15:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@ NeilN: Same as the last two. Springee ( talk) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Article has been subject to HughD sock editing for a while. New editor with a name that fits the pattern of the previous, recent HughD socks and adds the same content. Springee ( talk) 19:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Obligatory diffs: [126], [127] Sleepers? -- NeilN talk to me 19:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
A previous HughD sock MargeDouglas resurected a sandbox essay that has become WP:GUNCRIME. That editor was blocked by @ NeilN:. FlaTeen's first edits are to bring the sandbox page back to life as an essay. This certainly WP:QUACKs. The account went live on Feb 28th and is likely one of a number of sleepers.
The CarmenS16 account hasn't done much but the edit pattern is identical to User:GinaM14 The name also follows the pattern used for a number of the blocked socks. Springee ( talk) 19:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 19:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Trying to get the same material into SIG MCX as blocked sock Dlash ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did last February (also compare the first edits made by Dlash and this sock...), the name also seems to fit HughD's naming pattern. Dlash isn't tagged as a HughD sock but you'll find him in an archived report in this SPI. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed to socks in archive. Blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
New account started early March, same time frame as blocked accounts CaraL14, GinaM14, AlainaP14. As with others, first post was a talk page "user talk" tag and a user page edit to avoid any red lettering. This one has been editing gun articles and created a new article of questionable notability Ernest E. Moore Jr.[ [128]]. Was active as recently as July 12th. Springee ( talk) 18:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 18:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@ NeilN and Bbb23: Springee ( talk) 18:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Same naming pattern as other recent socks. Added material to gun related article. Similar material [ [129]] was added by a Chicago based IP [ [130]]. New editor who immidiately adds blank edits to their user pages to avoid the red. This sock isn't currently active (last edit just over a month back). Springee ( talk) 21:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yet another IP account used by this sock. The same gun related edits as previous socks. Chicago based IP addresses. I'm mostly reporting for archive purposes. Here is a diff added by one of the blocked HughD socks [ [131]] and here is the same added by the first IP above [ [132]] Springee ( talk) 20:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 20:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
Both IPs have already been blocked by
User:Maile66 and
User:DoRD respectively.--
IanDBeacon (
talk)
21:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Same naming pattern as other recently blocked socks. Starts with editing user and talk page to get rid of the red links. Material added to article is similar to material added by HughD socks and IP socks. Springee ( talk) 14:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same pattern as other recent socks. Established with edits to talk page and user page to avoid red links. Edit here [ [133]] is very similar to other sock edits [ [134]]. Topic area is again gun politics. User name fits the pattern of other recent names. Springee ( talk) 12:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 12:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Just added AlexS14. Again, same naming pattern. Account starts with 10 trivial edits then edits to username and talk page. Note the naming pattern CaraL14, GinaM14, AlainaP14, LukeHoy15, CarmenS16, AlyssaA14, MeadowP18, GuacO17 Springee ( talk) 04:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed + ChaseK7 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked and tagged. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Bbb23, sorry, yet another likely sock. New account established around the same time as ChaseK7 and with the same pattern. First edits are to clear the red tags associated with a black user and talk page. First edit is long and relates to a mass shooting. Note the similarities between these edits (suspected sock [ [135]], confirmed sock ChaseK7 [ [136]]). Springee ( talk) 11:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 11:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Added ChrisH49. Similar edit patterns, similar account creation and naming. Springee ( talk) 14:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked and tagged. @ Springee: When you file these reports in the future, which I suspect you'll do, please don't sign them; the form does it for you. When you sign them, you end up with a double sig. Thanks. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Another one. Same as the others, starts in May with a new account but no red lettering. Goes for the gun related articles etc. Springee ( talk) 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
And another one. Same story as before but with lots of edits Springee ( talk) 17:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Added a fresh sock. Active today. All the usual signs. Edit here [ [137]] same as previous sock [ [138]] blocked by DoRD Springee ( talk) 22:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same naming pattern, same way the account was started with edits to get rid of the red. This edit [ [139]] is same format as other HughD "proposals" [ [140]] and similar to material proposed by IP sock here [ [141]]. Springee ( talk) 18:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I see the editor was blocked as I was posting this.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same username style, splitting material created by another sock into new article Natureium ( talk) 16:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed + JackPatches6 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked without tags. The number of socks has become too large. No more tags per WP:DENY. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This looks like another HughD sock. Started the account with edits to remove red links. So far this account has only edited the Colt's Manufacturing Company page. A short while later a second HughD sock was on the page [ [142]]. The added text and the long overcite material at the end read like a HughD edit. Springee ( talk) 18:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Filing for information. These accounts were listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/72bikers. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
more disruptions at the NRA article and talk page. Springee ( talk) 23:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 23:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Unrelated, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Another NRA based edit and involving recent material. Given HughD's recent trolling this seems likely. Springee ( talk) 21:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 21:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Reposting same comments in same place. Is there a way to tie this to an established account? All so far have been new acct creations that get blocked. Legacypac ( talk) 01:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I added Lookg who was posting same comments but on various obscure articles I've never touched. He pinged me everytime. Legacypac ( talk) 17:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Added User:Fixlite as obviously same person. Legacypac ( talk) 18:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same attacks Legacypac ( talk) 20:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same edits as checkuser confirmed socks. Pleade block and rev delete all edits Legacypac ( talk) 19:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Slight variations on same trolling edits. Legacypac ( talk) 09:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Extended content
|
---|
72bikers: [144], [145] Rashthing: [146], [147] 72bikers is already blocked for edit warring. I've blocked Rashthing. I'd like a CU done so I can be more sure this isn't a joe job before sanctioning 72bikers further. NeilN talk to me 20:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. @ NeilN:, For what it's worth, this looks like a HughD sock. Not the contents of the edits but the way the account started
Here are some HughD sock examples:
MargeDouglas ( talk · contribs)
HFalkenberg ( talk · contribs)
Also, the edits are in the area of guns where HughD has been disruptive as of late. Springee ( talk) 23:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Unrelated.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
New account that made a single , with edit summary "Removing excessive detail that doesn’t belong in this article" that is nearly identical to multiple 3RR violating edits made recently by 72bikers, who is currently blocked for said violation. See 1, 2, 3, all with edit summaries "Removed overly detailed content , this is not a gun article". Waleswatcher (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I see the similarity in edit summary WW is referring to. However, 72bikers edits to that article have all been focused on the weapons used section (and as it relates to AR-15s and the like). The material in question was in the psychology and drug related problems section. This is an area that 72bikers hasn't previously edited. Springee ( talk) 03:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC) @ Springee: Look again. Ponyrogue's edit removed precisely the same material in the weapons used section that 72bikers' edits did. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
A few days after 72bikers block expired, this user showed up with a username which is explicitly directed as an insult at me. Previously, 72bikers was blocked because of their conflict with me. Their only edit other than insults of me on my user talk page is to remove an edit from Waleswatcher with an insulting edit summary - Waleswatcher was another editor who came into conflict with 72bikers on this page. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Mikeuralot created an account at 1:29 and seven minutes later reverted one of my edits [151] and referred me to the talk page. Looks like a duck to me. - Mr X 🖋 04:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Question for @ TonyBallioni:. 72bikers is under a gun topic ban but are any of the sock accounts related to 72bikers violating that ban? For my own understanding, I was under the impression that alternative accounts are "allowed" but given a number of rules. At least two are no crossing paths (sock) and no evading. Unless 72bikers was currently subject to a block were they violating EVADE? I'm asking rather than anything else. Springee ( talk) 05:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Given my username's inclusion in one of the socks and 72bikers banning me from their talk and then trash talking me there with Springee, and that I had a big part in getting 72bikers topic banned, I'm not convinced this is not 72bikers. Not sure who else fits the bill. Weird. Legacypac ( talk) 05:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@ TonyBallioni:, could you confirm that this struck comment was one of the HughD socks? [ [157]] I agree with @ MrX:'s efforts to strike the sock comment but I think they listed the wrong master. Thanks, Springee ( talk) 16:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm the only one out of all of us that did check both groups, and probably have checked them multiple times this week. The CU data for the accounts matched to group 1 are identical to 72bikers. Not just similar, not by connecting the dots or by a stretch of the imagination, identical. The only way I can reasonably fathom that someone other than 72bikers created those accounts is if 72bikers invited that person over to their location and let them use the same device, which is nonsense since that other person (or who we think the other person would be) was also using a completely different device several hundred miles away at the same time.
Springee, I have a lot of respect for your trust in this person and disbelief at what's occurred, and it is likely that group 2 is latching on to a dispute they weren't already involved in to stir up trouble and impersonating group 1 in the process, but group 1 is 72bikers and they are not innocent. I'm sorry, but you need to stop
beating this particular horse, it's quite dead.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
15:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Didn't relize socks using the signature of the master was a thing. Would probably make things a lot easier if it caught on. GMG talk 16:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC) And a new sock Narcasiskiller ( talk · contribs). I've opened an investigation here [ [160]] but I'm reporting this here given the overlap. Springee ( talk) 17:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Here is yet another new sock Ureapwhatusow ( talk · contribs). Are we sure the other one is a 72bikers vs HughD? It seems like HughD is the active editor. Springee ( talk) 16:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Ivanvector, this is HughD, right? Drmies ( talk) 16:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Repeating same gross insults as previous CU confirmed socks Legacypac ( talk) 11:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Similar attacks as previous CU confirmed socks Legacypac ( talk) 02:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@ Ivanvector:, is there new CU information to tie this to 72bikers? I would assume so but I wanted to ask given my previous reservations and historical interactions with both accounts. Thanks! Springee ( talk) 19:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
So 72bikers and HughD really are the same person after all. I played a role in getting 72bikers blocked around his activity at the NRA page so now I know why HughD socks are on my case. Thanks. Legacypac ( talk) 22:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Same old same old As CU confirmed Legacypac ( talk) 03:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Reposting same material Legacypac ( talk) 19:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Named confirmed socks posted the same material elsewhere as this IP posted on my talkpage. 100% related. Legacypac ( talk) 20:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I've seen the same attacks a couple times before before posted but I believe they were rev deleted. Might have been posted to a Giantsnowman Arb Case page and some other random page. Thinking about it they were also by an IP. This may be a different troll on reflection, but operating along a similar vein. Don't sweat it if not a match. The posts are fantastical enough they speak for themselves. Legacypac ( talk) 16:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same posts as other socks Legacypac ( talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Account now blocked. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Same attacks. This time at AN Legacypac ( talk) 04:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Add another one blocked at AN just for the record. Legacypac ( talk) 17:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same old same old attack post Legacypac ( talk) 02:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The posts by this sock are close variations of ones by previous confirmed socks of HughD/72bikers. There is no way it is some random other user so they found a way around the measures User:Ivanvector placed. The guy is so lame. Legacypac ( talk) 17:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Unrelated to the master but I've blocked them as NOTHERE for now.
DeltaQuad, would you take a look?
Your comment about remembering the cu data for BCD is encouraging because this could be him based on behavior and the cu log. All of his confirmed socks have gone stale so a good memory would be helpful here.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
15:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Usual legacypac nonsense Qwirkle ( talk) 19:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Springee has accused this editor of being a HughD sock, removed comments [161] [162] [163] [164] based on that assessment and labelled the IP as a suspected sock [165] [166]. If we're going to label an editor as a suspected sock, it should be supported by a sockpuppet investigation.
I will leave it to Springee to provide diffs and evidence. – dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Since this was opened I will add a few other IPs that have been active in the last month. Tagging these as suspected makes it easier to revert edits per EVADE in the future.
The IP in question per DUCK. This is also a block editor who targets my contributions to WP:HOUND me. See NeilN's comments regarding the hounding issue [ [167]]. Because this issue involves a long term pattern of HOUND I would like the IP editors tagged so the edits can be removed without question. This explains why an IP address just happened to find the OpEd article I was involved with.
Like the other non-Amazon proxy IPs, this one is in the Chicago area. It was previously used in 2017 to sock edit the S&W M&P15 article (added same content as Amazon proxy IP, more below), I tagged it in 2017 as part of a rash of Amazon and Chicago IP edits by HughD.
IPs currently listed as HughD suspected are either Chicago area or Amazon proxy
Extended content
|
---|
Over the past two years or so several admins including NeilN, @ Yamla:, @ DoRD: have blocked various IP's suspected to be used by HughD. Not all are tagged as HughD vs just blocked.
The IP in question posted two comments to the Signpost OpEd article. This is an obscure place to just show up. The IP has very few edits but was previously used to add material to the Smith & Wesson M&P15 page.
In the 2017 time period when the IP in question was used, a number of HughD related socks were active and many blocked. As an example here is the list for the Smith & Wesson M&P-15 article and talk page. Note this is a rather obscure article. The intent here is to show the current IP editor fits the profile per WP:DUCK
S&W M&P-15 Talk page
S&W M&P-15 Article:
Because no single IP is used that much typically the edits are reverted and we move on. However, since a recent reversion was challenged I would like to note these additional recently active IP addresses: Recently active sock IPs ( less than two month old )
I'm not asking for a block but if they are added to the list of suspected socks it would be helpful when editors who aren't familiar with HughD's behavior question removals. Springee ( talk) 04:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Bbb23:, given the effort I put into compiling the evidence I would appreciate if you would at least look at this to see if it appears likely that the IP in question is the same editor as used it in 2017 and that the 21 March edit is the same content as the 17 March edit. Springee ( talk) 13:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I suspect this is another HughD sock. If nothing else the way the account came into being looks like a fairly typical EVADE behavior. The account, like a number of previous HughD socks, started with a user name that was a Name-number combination. The first edits were to the home page and talk page to remove the red links. Then it was to a politically controversial topic. As HughD has often targeted articles I'm involved with (see the earlier complaints) it's possible that is why they chose this article and the content in question. The edit rational also seems HughD like, "add to notability with sources". HughD and socks typically do an appeal to notability/weight to get material included in an article when consensus doesn't agree that weight favors inclusion. I will admit I'm less certain than normal that this is a HughD sock but I think the behavior is clear EVADE. Springee ( talk) 01:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
User is exhibiting the same kind of editing pattern on List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019, in regards to making the same edits as Casualeditorunder did. Dif 1 (by Casualeditorunder) Dif 2 (by Tomcaly) – Braxton C. Womack talk to me! 04:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked master for 72 hours and indeffed the sock.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
00:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Both accounts are being used for the sole purpose of harassing me, leaving strange comments with my signature. This is typical HughD behavior and warrants a block in any case.
Rainorshine113: [200] – dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This doesn't really seem like the HughD behavior I've observed over the years but it certainly seems like an editor who is trying to antagonize Dlthewave. That said, I did see some recent IP editor activity that looked to be typical HughD so the timing would check out. HughD or not the two accounts should probably be blocked as NOTHERE Springee ( talk) 02:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed to the Tomcaly group and likely to 72bikers as stated in the archive. To be clear, this is in the same location as HughD:
Blocked and tagged.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
10:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
User name fits the format of many other HughD socks. User started with a edit to their own user page then added content to the NRA article with edit tags similar to previous HughD edits. Springee ( talk) 19:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Examples of similar names used by this sock CaraL14, GinaM14, AlainaP14, LukeHoy15, CarmenS16, AlyssaA14, MeadowP18, GuacO17, CharB6, AlexS14, MadHsu6, ChrisH49, AaronF37, DanBar7, IAMGreen6, HelenaR17, DylanHock6, JessL6, JaimeG14, OliviaEn6, Kimsong7, EmParker6, GymMat6, CatherineH6, GMcD6
Springee ( talk) 12:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I suspect this is still a HughD sock. Per the CU we know the location is consistent. The behavior and account naming is also consistent. The way the user setup their home page with a single project link and opened the account in Aug 2018. Same as those listed below:
I think the DUCK evidence is very strong in this case. Springee ( talk) 17:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This account opened like several other recent socks. The first edits are adding a link to a random project then a follow on by adding edits to the home and talk page to remove the red. Additionally, HughD’s previous socks have targeted the Ford Pinto article. See these previous filings as an examples of both [ [204]],[ [205]]. The following HughD socks all created pages with project links [ [206]] [ [207]] [ [208]] [ [209]] [ [210]] [ [211]] [ [212]] [ [213]]
Springee ( talk) 21:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 21:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This is looking like yet another HughD sleeper account. The account was created in April with edits to user and talk page but no additional edits. Now, months later the editor just happens to post their 3rd ever post to a policy talk page. The near 5k post is a long diatribe [ [214]] in reply to a WP:V talk page discussion I'm involved with. The tone is very much HughD with phrasing like "our neutrality pillar". As noted in previous reports to socks, HughD was fond of using phrasing such as "our article" "our guidelines" etc. As in many cases Hughd doesn't address me personally but does try to address my arguments in an oblique fashion. As always, any time a "new" editor shows up and talks about policy in detail on a talk page of a WP policy we should be suspicious. This isn't the behavior of a "new" editor. Springee ( talk) 21:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Springee ( talk) 21:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
WP:DUCK. Re-adding same wording of blocked account Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk assistance requested: Please move this to the correct case.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
User name "SeriousContributor" is a reference to recent trolling and socking by other HughD socks, specifically this sock created out of anger for the blocks of Generl_flipper, Allthetime123456, Hit a couple corners and Mans infinite search of knowledge.
The aw-shucks-I'm-a-noob pose is typical of how HughD introduces a new account [215] A perfectly formatted image, even including such WP:GA sticking points like image alt text, is pretty strong evidence of someone with years of editing experience, not a new user as claimed. This change is further evidence of a pretty sophisticated understanding of Wikipedia formatting, and the realization that they were putting a little too fine a point on their feud with me personally. The almost-boilerplate "in focus, not altered or retouched, properly cropped, and there is no underlying copyright violation" is something a veteran editor would say, with knowledge of picture criteria. The "the user who deleted the photo has one of his own photos uploaded that forms part of the Monster article" is one of this sockmaster's obsessions, accusing others of owning articles.
There's pretty good odds that the IP address will be geographically distant from other socks, as has been the case before.
I should mention for the record, that the edit summary "added a missing image of a special edition S4R" and the talk comment "here is currently no image of this model of the Monster range (the S4R)," is nonsense. The lead image File:Ducati Monster S4R S Tricolore 2008.jpg is a special edition S4R. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Unrelated and no other socking seen in the range.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
01:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Same obsession with Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R. Same pattern of throwaway accounts created to fuss over this article. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Look at these behavioural similarities:
"the analysis itself is not noteworthy without further description of findings or significance" as an edit summary, let me ask you: Before or during your deletion of another editor's contribution, including several important new reliable sources, did it cross your mind, however briefly, that this might be an edit in progress, especially, knowing as you do, that the contributor is an experienced editor, with a record of good articles, and this contribution was only a few hours old? Hugh (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC) [217]
HJ Mitchell - "Removing 10k characters of sourced prose from an article isn't vandalism?" No, it isn't. It wasn't the best way to deal with a content issue and was pretty stupid, but as my edit summaries and talk page comments show, it was exactly what Wikipedia:Vandalism says that vandalism is not. "I will not lift the block as I believe it necessary to prevent further vandalism." that is entirely up to you, and I agree the block calmed things down - wrong block, right outcome. "If anything, I might make it longer." again, that is your call - however, that would seem very much like an Admin who was very busy tagging everything as vandalism and blocking people, not looking carefully enough at the edits, having their mistaken claims of vandalism pointed out to them, and then not responding promptly as required by WP:ADMINACCT when asked about it. I have no desire to even look at the article in question again, I've said what I think on the subject and would rather work on other articles. But, if you think it's right to extend the block because you are upset that I criticized your judgement, then I won't complain. 136.158.59.173 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC) [218]
Basically, they are always quoting the other person's statements and then using technicalities to 'refute' the argument. At least that's what I see. Sungodtemple a tcg fan !! 1 ! 11 !! ( talk) 12:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Pro forma, mostly just filing to put this back on our radar. Berean Hunter blocked this IP for 3 years in 2018. As it was a CUblock of an IP, no master was specified, but it's clear from surrounding context that HughD was the master. After the block expired, the IP returned, showing the same interest in mass shootings and using the same edit summary style. Rare to see a duck go a thousand edits on an IP that's already been sockblocked once, but, a duck this is nonetheless. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 16:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
This user seems very interested in mass shootings, just as observed with the IP sockpuppet 76.198.24.189 ( talk · contribs). Their edit summaries are also similar, in the sense that they use the plus (+) sign to indicate the addition of materials ( [219] [220]) and their peculiar way of starting said summaries ( [221] [222]). In addition, when they joined in August 2022, this user is already creating code and a sandbox, as well as using WP:PRIT ( [223]) and WP:HOTCAT ( [224]), indicating an immediate familiarity with Wikipedia.
Unless I'm missing something here, all of what I noticed is most certainly suspicious to me. Love of Corey ( talk) 03:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)