Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lam312321321/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lam312321321

Lam312321321 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

20 July 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


From a report at ANI I investigated suspicious edits by a new account (Sunak23) which were made while Florenceandthemachine32 was sitting out a block for the same edits. I have listed confirmed accounts below, however they are clearly related to this sockmaster and several stale accounts, based on contribs in common. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

17 July 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Florenceand themachine32 was blocked for a week on the 13th July for disruptive editing and failing to engage on the talk parge of articles mainly to do with English Culture. On the 16th July An IP started a similar set of edits again edit warring without participating in the talk page on Culture of England and shortly after Tigerbws took over claiming to support the IP. THe IP is located in Ipswich UK. The previous pattern in June was very similar with a range of IP addresses all starting with 2a02:c7d:5d63:1300.... again based in Ipswich (I didn't check every variant of the IP range). As assertion on my talk page that said editor was not a sock but lived in Durham contained an rather odd phrase "Always a pleasure to hear from you" which might indicate previous editing activity. ---Snowded TALK 05:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just added Sunak23 - new editor created the day page protection was removed and near identical pattern of editing over various articles - adding material to pictures, adding more pictures, moving around text all without explanation or justification -----Snowded TALK 16:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And added 90.215.203.124 another Ipswich based IP that edited to support Sunak23 on Education in England -----Snowded TALK 04:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I was going to report Sunak23 as a potential sockpuppet of Florenceandthemachine32 due to very similar edits on Education in England (the edits by Florenceandthemachine32 have been blanked for copyright violation, so no diffs are available) when I found there was already a case open. Robminchin (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

24 July 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Per a note on my talk page, and adding images with an invalid license at Culture of England. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

From another post on my talk page. See below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

11 January 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same MO as previous socks, confirmed or otherwise: sustained campaign of sweeping changes to Education in England (per edit history), stretching back at least to Feb 19. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per 1), This edit by a confirmed sock makes sweeping changes to Education in England, including, for example, the removal or considerable reduction of the nursery, foundation and primary sections. It is closely comparable to 2) this edit, by the user under investigation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Additional information needed - @Mutt Lunker: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: There's significant similarity in the edits to Education in England, but I don't see enough to block based on that alone. It's 6 months since the last sock was active, and with these few edits to look at, I can't convince myself this is the same person. We can always come back and take another look at some point in the future. Closing with no action at this time. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08 March 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Three socks from the past week all making the same edit to Education in England as their first edit: [1], [2], [3]. Some elements of these edits match those by the original sockmaster (such as [4], which includes the same edit of "School subjects" to "Curriculum").

User:0211 SKDGAKUCH02 seems on the surface to be deliberate mimicry of unrelated account User:0211 SKDGAKUCHO that also made a small edit to the article during the week. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Would agree. The same characteristics are very evident; obvious quacking. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I am not Iam. I'm not sure what a stockpuppet account is so I did some research. Yeah, I'm not a stockpuppet. Can you please expand on and inform me what I've done wrong? All I'm doing is improving mistakes and errors on a few pages while observiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKzzD (talk • contribs) 11:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO: If I'm this person, then why am I editing? Surely if I was this person I'd be banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKzzD (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

All 3 are clearly related, JjsSwjgmail and 0211 SKDGAKUCH02 are CU confirmed. Blocking them all. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New SPA user resuming the same kind of edit warring on Education in England as the sock that was banned on Monday (about +2k of alteration, including almost identical edits on the "Grammar, Punctuation, Spelling" paragraph: [5] [6]), behaviourally similar in their reaction to being reverted and sock-templated. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; blindingly obvious. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just rolled them back - maybe full protection on their target articles for a bit? -----Snowded TALK 11:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already requested this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Education_in_England. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

22 September 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

After Jim113232 was warned multiple times by Diannaa for copyright issues at State-funded schools (England) and blocked by Hut 8.5 yesterday for the same, Sapphire232 was created today and continues to copy material from elsewhere into the same article [7]. DanCherek (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 September 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Two weeks ago User:KayteeSeemthDWs requested changes to the Primary and Secondary education sections at Talk:Education in England. They were asked to be more specific, and were later blocked as being a sock of Lam312321321, a user who'd edit warred over these and other parts of the article in the past.

Today User:Liontheslayer2 came forward with a specific edit request about the same sections, with User:Carbia232 joining in and giving their support on the talk page. Both Liontheslayer2 and Carbia232 accounts were created today and have made no other edits. Lord Belbury (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Spicy as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  •  Clerk endorsed - The three accounts mentioned in the filing are behaviourally similar to each other and to previous accounts in the archive (e.g. EspaeniaCanta, who was trying to make changes to the exact same sections). The archive is stale, but since there's a history of CU uncovering additional accounts I'm endorsing CU to confirm & check for sleepers. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - these are confirmed (plus some), but I think there's an explanation here that we've been missing... ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Below accounts found and  Technically indistinguishable:

27 September 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:QUACK, same behaviour as the User:Sapphire232 sockpuppet last week, copying (the same?) content from other Wikipedia articles to State-funded schools (England) without credit. No other edits. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

04 November 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The IP block on 82.3.96.145 expired a couple of days ago.

New user Wikiaedit22 joined Wikipedia around 2pm yesterday with an edit to Culture of England that announced "image placement issue now resolved", apparently continuing an old talk page discussion with a past sock of Lam312321321 at Talk:Culture_of_England#Multiple-image_galleries.

82.3.96.145 made some edits half an hour later.

Overnight, Touristexpertd joined Wikipedia and their first, ambitious +92k edit included the restoration of an old edit by 82.3.96.145, and copying a lot of content uncredited from other articles as past socks have done.

Requesting checkuser as there were several sleeper accounts focusing on non-overlapping articles last month. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the hopes for an unblock request below, the user has actually requested an unblock at FloTheGreat this afternoon, which does seem to be their most active account, but sadly the request is a story about how they share a cafe and an account with a group of likeminded friends. User:Florenceandthemachine32 was given the standard offer last July, but seems to have declined it: Florence232 was registered in September, then renamed by request to FloTheGreat a few weeks ago, one day after the last round of Lam312321321 blocks. For what it's worth as a civilian, the behavioral match seems enormously strong to me, but I won't spell it all out. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  In progress - Girth Summit (blether) 09:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The following accounts are confirmed to each other, and to previously blocked socks:
  • DWFanmatt
  • FloTheGreat
  • William63af
  • Lagentiane
  • Fle232
  • Sontahah
  • Wikiaedit22
  • Touristexpertd
    At first, I wondered whether the device that connects them might belong to a public library, with lots of different people using it. Looking at the contributions though, there is a massive overlap in editing interest - '<subject> in England' (e.g. Sport in England, Culture in England, Education in England...) and similar articles, with some more general overlap in education, and a bit of corresponding editing in '<subject> in <Other European country>' articles. I'm pretty sure this is the same person, and I see repeated issues with copyright on at least one talk page. Will block and tag; no comment with regards to the IP mentioned in the report, naturally. Girth Summit (blether) 09:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - hang fire, missed a couple one... Girth Summit (blether) 09:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KayteeSeemthDWfan
    That's it, as far as I can see. Girth Summit (blether) 10:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the specific blocks, but massive overlap in editing interest - '<subject> in England' from a library could just mean a school project (or even an edit-a-thon). I'm not saying it is, just noting the possibility. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: I considered that possibility, but I'm fairly confident that this is all one person. TBH, I think this is someone who could potentially be productive and beneficial to the project, and I'm kind of hoping that they request unblock from the most active account so we can have a discussion about it. From what little I've seen though, I see this as someone who isn't really interested in following our rules (particularly with regards to copyright and sockpuppetry), and just wants to continue doing things their way without any regard for policy. If you feel I've might have made the wrong call, I'm 100% open to you reviewing it and telling me - I'm about as far from infallible as it gets! Girth Summit (blether) 19:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm good. It was just a random thought. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lord Belbury thanks for the heads-up - I may take a closer look at their contribs, and engage with that unblock request, if I get time. I'm going to close this report now though, I think it's served its purpose. Girth Summit (blether) 20:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Restoring some old FloTheGreat content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=England&diff=1052642417&oldid=1052442562 / https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=England&curid=9316&diff=1072859292&oldid=1072181282) Lord Belbury (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I added Hi2create2, another brand new account with a similar username who is editing back-to-back with Create232 at Culture of England (which has been extensively edited by Lam312321321 socks [8]). Behaviourally, I'm confident both of these are Lam312321321; CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk to check for other accounts because there are usually several sleepers (see e.g. [9]). Thanks, Spicy (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These accounts are  Confirmed to one another, and to Fa2ad22, and the logs and behaviour both point towards this being Lam312321321. I remain disappointed that they are choosing to create socks instead of making an unblock request that includes an undertaking to restrict themselves to a single account, and to learn and respect our copyright policies. Oh well. Girth Summit (blether) 15:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Exhibits behaviour strongly reminiscent of several past Lam312321321 sockpuppets, particularly Florenceandthemachine32 (talk · contribs), of pasting a lot of uncredited content from other articles into sections of the England article, then apologising for being new when challenged about it, but ignoring advice given and continuing the problem edits.

Among their other contributions they share 2TigerBW (talk · contribs)'s interest in the contents of the table at the obscure National symbols of England article. User's general behaviour (being confident in reverting articles, making ten null edits to get autoconfirmed) doesn't really chime with a genuinely new user working it all out for the first time.

Requesting checkuser as Lam has used sleeper accounts in the past. Lord Belbury (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. They were clearly not a new editor and I was racking my brains to think where I'd seen that style before. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed CU match to Florenceandthemachine32 also to User:Transportloveriq who hasn't edited yet. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Duck quacking into a megaphone: this user who was active for a few hours last January and disappeared in response to an inconclusive SPI has just woken up 18 months later to make an edit request to restore one of the edits that the now-blocked sock from the previous report applied yesterday and even mentioned in their edit summary. Lord Belbury (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Please do hear me out:

I would just like to say that I'm sorry to the admins and Lord for dealing with me and my accounts. I'm not here to cause trouble or dismay; I love expanding articles and I enjoy making articles better. I love this site and service and like expanding onto topics that I have an interest in (history, geography etc).

The reason why I have made many accounts is simply because I was banned 2 years ago for not listening to feedback on my talkpage, which I picked up on and now fully understand, because I was new to the site back then and was getting around. I have had to create accounts after accounts since, because they continue to be banned. Now, I understand the rules regarding evasions and banned accounts not being allowed here. However, I only do this because I generally love this service and expanding onto topics I enjoy learning about with my friends. I'm a student and I like English history and geography.

I suffer from mental health issues and expanding topics and being here takes my mind of those challenges and makes me happier at times. It's no wonder I kept making new accounts, when admins don't really wish to hear me out nor give me a chance. I have submitted several ban appeals and they have all come back with the same reply. I completely own where I've gone wrong over the past two years; making accounts, not listening to feedback on talkpages (I've really improved on that now, thus, take a look at my recent edits. I politely asked why a member reverted my edits, and took their feedback and advice kindly, and acted upon it), and not correctly informing in the edit box where I copied Wiki content from (as in different pages) for different sections. I'm sorry for those issues and I know where I have gone wrong.

I'd like to take this moment to give you some quotes from Admins dealing with these cases regarding myself:

I remain disappointed that they are choosing to create socks instead of making an unblock request that includes an undertaking to restrict themselves to a single account, and to learn and respect our copyright policies. TBH, I think this is someone who could potentially be productive and beneficial to the project, and I'm kind of hoping that they request unblock from the most active account so we can have a discussion about it.

Yet, when I make account appeals, and learn copyright policies, it's the same reply. I have to create new accounts because I don't want to remain banned and love doing what I do. My first account was banned 2 years ago. Again, I am sorry. I just want to return and be able to do what I love. DdLiam (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DdLiam: Last November you were asked at User_talk:FloTheGreat#Blocked_as_a_sockpuppet to read and understand the Wikipedia:Standard offer, to take a six month break without socking and then to request an unblock of your account. You agreed to that, but you clearly haven't understood it, and that is the core of the problem here.
You can see that other editors are usually happy to give advice and explanations when asked. But it's much harder for anyone here to give you the help you need when you're concealing what you already know about Wikipedia and pretending to be a completely new user. If another editor is kind enough to give you ten minutes of their time to answer your question, pretending that you don't know anything at all and they need to start from absolute scratch is a waste of that time, for both of you.
I appreciate that you want to help by expanding articles, and a lot of Wikipedia has a great need of that. But you need to take the standard offer seriously. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lord, yes, I do agree. I was in the wrong. I did, however, take a break from here. As you can imagine, it's a little hard at times when you really want to edit. I'm in the wrong and I appreciate that and appreciate where I've gone wrong.

As you can see by my edits on the England national page, I politely asked why the two users reverted my edits. I acted upon it, and I improved. I tried to trim down the info I added but, clearly, that wasn't well enough and I respect that.

I'm not a bad person, nor am I here to cause dismay. I always try my best and I do feel a bit upset when my edits get reverted after the work I put into them, and ensuring they are very well sourced and up-to-date. One of my flaws is going into over detail on topics. I get carried away and I am sorry for that. It's simply because I like detail. However, I understand that the Wiki pages for nations are basic overviews and everyone isn't. I feel the content I submitted would be better to add to full pages (e.g. history of nations, etc). I tried to improve, and I was planning on leaving it if my edit was reverted again, and thus it was by you, and I'm banned again, which I respect fully and understand.

Like I said, I'm not a bad person nor am I trying to cause trouble. The reason why I continue to be banned is simply because I'm dedicated. I've improved a lot of segments here and love doing so for the project. But, I fully respect why I was banned and how creating accounts while banned is against the rules. I just wish I could turn back time to 2 years ago and correctly reply back to comments on my talkpage. You can't turn back time, and I own up to where I've gone wrong, like an adult. DdLiam (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DdLiam: You are not being repeatedly banned for being too dedicated or going into too much detail. You are being banned for repeatedly creating new accounts to evade a block, and for pretending that those accounts aren't you. Have you read the Wikipedia:Standard offer? Do you understand what it's asking you to do? I'm sure you have good intentions and are not a bad person, but you do need to understand why evading a block in this way is unhelpful, and to stop doing it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an account appeal per say. However, I would like to go over everything I have acknowledged since 2020:

• It's important to always check your talkpage and discuss editing issues in a polite, well-mannered nature. When your edit is reverted, it's always best to put up a polite message on the respected user's talkpage, asking why their edit or edits were reverted, and where they could improve on it.

• When copying text from other Wikipedia pages, it's important to note which page you copied from in the editbox, with a link to those respected pages. It's also important that when you copy content from other pages, the respected page or pages are linked in the section under the title (e.g. main article: geography of Scotland). Wikipedia has strong copyright policies.

• Making accounts while being banned is against the code of conduct and is not allowed. DdLiam (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

10 October 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Making big edits to the same sections of education in England as past socks (compare [10] and [11]), and copy and pasting without attribution between articles as past socks have done (content from religious education being pasted into religious studies). Lord Belbury (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later in the day the similar IP 2a02:c7c:3172:8200:dc01:11ba:acc0:ff03 (talk · contribs) restored the previous IP's content at Religious studies, and is making similar edit summaries and comments about being a religious studies teacher. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lord Belbury, I'm very sorry - I was just trying to make Wikipedia better and I've never used multiple accounts to add information across the website. I've definitely never edited the Education In England page previously and apologise to you if I've caused any upset. The information is definitely wrong on that page about secondary education in England though (or at least way outdated) - you can see the sources I've cited are about the national curriculum in England are all accurate in what I'm saying about core subjects and so on. I added the bit in about character education as there has recently been a new Ofsted handbook. Also, in England, Religious Education is part of the basic curriculum and synonymous with Religious Studies, I've just copied across similarly worded/the same things to make sure people don't miss the info - if I'm breaking a rule I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do so. I've spoken with Mr Ollie and realised I was using the same sources/info too much and made it look like I'm spamming - he's also suggested I register for an account - which I will do. I'm very sorry, I'm new to all of this and was just trying to update Wikipedia and be helpful. 2A02:C7C:3172:8200:DC01:11BA:ACC0:FF03 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Lord Belbury, I mean to say that I've never changed the 'education in England' page before earlier today. I added those bits in about SMSC and character, but haven't used multiple accounts or anything? I'm a bit confused how Wikipedia works. I'll try and make an account so you can clearly tell what are my edits? 2A02:C7C:3172:8200:DC01:11BA:ACC0:FF03 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 March 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Unlikely overlap of the same few English/French education/culture/mass-media articles (including making the same incorrect engvar change to Original Play as FloTheGreat, a few weeks later, [12] [13]) and repeating the ongoing problem behaviour of copying content from other articles without attribution, acknowledging talk page warnings asking them not to do this, then continuing to do it.

Requesting a checkuser for other sleepers, given that this account has run alongside past blocks and the last sleeper check was 2021. IP 2A00:23C7:698D:5A01:DCEE:5685:3F8D:B5EC (talk · contribs) was also reverting to the blocked user's preferred version of English Renaissance a couple of days ago. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Noting that Historybluff2's edit to History of England mentioned below was actually a straight revert to a July 2022 version of the article, taking it back to User:Transportloveriq's last edit before they got banned for being a Lam312 sock. --Belbury (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
 Done JBW (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19 April 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User's edits to Conservative Party (UK) have close similarities to those of User:Florenceandthemachine32 from 2020: merging paragraphs (some in identical ways), and removing some of the same specific sentences (Islamophobia, Mark Clarke, Ken Clarke calling the British Bill of Rights "xenophobic nonsense"). [16], [17].

User's edits to Elizabethan era are similar in style to past socks: a wall of fifty additions and removals with no summaries, some copying content from other articles without attribution. User received a warning about copying without attribution in March but continued to do this on the Conservative Party edits in April, above. Belbury (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

28 April 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Block evasion - reinstated edits by FloTheGreat (talk · contribs) another blocked/confirmed sockpuppet of Lam312321321 10mmsocket (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 May 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new registered user jumps into the fray at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Economy_of_England#Lead_image

EIU is absolutely telling IMO.   Aloha27  talk  14:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 May 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Editing some of the same few education/history articles as past socks, the most glaringly familiar edit being +4,280 characters of text copied (without attribution) from other Wikipedia articles and (against copyright) from external web sources, with a broad "corrected some problems" summary.

Also restored some edits from checkuser blocked IP User:2A00:23C7:698D:5A01:350E:A2D4:51E5:F0F7 on the T Level article. Belbury (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

11 June 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New user removing and changing (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1159665277) the same images as sock User:Artcle23 ([18], [19]). Requesting checkuser since this account pre-dates the last blocks and four sleepers were found that time. Belbury (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I am one hundred per cent not this Wikipedian. I thought the image United Kingom for the section looked rather bad, so I found the only nice picture for it on commons. There are no other brighter pictures for it (I searched for about 10 mins). --Eg23sd (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

17 June 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new account weighing in on the same obscure sentences of semi-protected UK articles after waiting out four days and ten edits. ([20], [21]). Account created eight hours after the previous sockpuppet account was blocked. Belbury (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

17 August 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same pattern as Eng3rtd (talk · contribs), focusing on the single article Culture of England, with edits that change or move images, and which paste in content from nearby articles without crediting the source.

Requesting checkuser as the user has split edits across different accounts and run sleepers in the past. Belbury (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

21 August 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Rolling back Bus transport in the United Kingdom to the version last touched by Lam312321321 sock FloTheGreat on 18 October 2021, with a false edit summary about correcting POV issues and cleaning up the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bus_transport_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=1171444240&oldid=1050602291 Belbury (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I added two based on CU sweep. These three are internally confirmed and rather likely to the master. Will block/tag the lot. Courcelles (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is 109.156.3.29 a stockpuppet? Feel like @Belbury is reverting too much edits which results in stockpuppet returning. You don't have to revert all their small edits, maybe just a few big ones. 109.154.40.187 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. 109.154.40.187 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I'm doing, I'm not going to spend time carefully scrutinising each of your smaller edits to decide whether they were on balance maybe helpful. If you don't want your edits reverted, don't evade your block to make them. Belbury (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Directly restoring some deleted content from earlier sock account User:Trainlovervd to Transport in England (The railway network in England remain one of the densest networks...) [22] [23] Belbury (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

EIU between these two is a no-doubter IMO. https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Trainlovervd&users=Transit232 I may be wrong, but not all the time. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  17:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01 September 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new account straight to page edited by sock currently under SPI.   Aloha27  talk  21:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Confirmed:
Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07 September 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account reapplying reverted edits made by a sock from last month ([24], [25])

Requesting checkuser as they always seem to run a few sleepers. Belbury (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 October 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Reapplying nearly all of a -7k edit on Home education in the United Kingdom by 1deangreenie ([26], [27]). Requesting checkuser as this LTA regularly runs different accounts for different target articles, and has sleeper accounts. Belbury (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

20 December 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Direct restoration of fragments of earlier sock edits on Economy of England. All of the following are parts of these August 2023 edits from checkuser-blocked Basis2:

  • [28] ("...including luxury cars such as Rolls-Royce, Bentley and Range Rover.")
  • [29] ("Agriculture in England is today intensive, highly mechanised, and efficient.")
  • [30] ("The fishing industry in England catches a variety of different fish and seafood including...")
  • [31] (changing "the second- or third-largest aerospace industry in the world, depending upon the method of measurement" to "the second-largest national aerospace industry in the world (after the United States)")

Requesting checkuser as this person generally runs different accounts for different articles. Belbury (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I have no idea what any of this means. I looked through the history of the page and found some old versions of it that and thought I'd add back some useful stuff. I didn't look at the account. I also didn't add anything about fishing --Liamstar2 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On that note I'm also not ChefBear01?? Liamstar2 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed

who was previously blocked as a sock under this case. I also noticed a bunch of logged-out editing which might be handled by semiprotection. I have blocked Liamstar2. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New user whose very first edit was to update the same road network length sentence ([32]) that had been reverted less than a day previously, after the previous sock had evaded a block to edit it ([33]). Standard checkuser request for sleepers as this user consistently splits their edits of different articles over different accounts. Belbury (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

05 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Two new users, one of whom created an account one day after the last sock was blocked in the archive. Both intersecting on Economy of England, both using the visual editor, Englandsupport4 username similar to User:Englanduser2c. There are a lot of socks in this farm and couldn't check all of them, but didn't see the focus on Doctor Who articles Englandsupport4 has - otherwise, might have blocked behaviorally. Requesting a check to confirm and look for others that may have cropped up. Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Both  Confirmed to various recent accounts in the archive plus
Spicy (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account created 15 minutes after Englandsupport4's block above, and whose first edits were to undo and then restore an edit by Bbm232. They're now offering their wisdom about block evasion on my talk page. Checkuser request per previous SPIs. Belbury (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

06 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Reverted Tourism in England to a version written by blocked sock User:Jewel23aer five months ago. Belbury (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

07 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Repeat of edits, cf [34] v [35]. Geolocation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

09 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP pasting unattributed text from other Wikipedia articles into Transport in England, an unaddressed problem behaviour from several past sock accounts. [36] pastes in content from at least History of the British canal system, Transport in the United Kingdom, Freeports in the United Kingdom and Bus transport in the United Kingdom (content that was actually removed from that article in a clearout of unsourced content a couple of days ago). The IP also shares a past sock's distaste for use of the phrase "Boris Bikes" in an image caption. ([37], [38]) Belbury (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

10 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Pro forma --Blablubbs (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

A new user and a couple of IPs teaming up to create an Energy in England article by copying text from other Wikipedia pages (and possibly other websites) without attribution, in the Lam312321321 style. Belbury (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Amazing what people get up to. That article is largely a replica of Energy in the United Kingdom, in large part because 5/6ths of the UK lives in England. Wizmut (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Spicy (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29 February 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account was created eight minutes after the last group of socks were blocked. This one slept for a month then removed enough red links from another article, one at a time, to be able to make a big edit to the semi-protected Culture of England ([39]) restoring some Lam312321321 fixations, eg. that a specific upright=2 image should be around 500px instead ([40]), that the Royal College of Music caption is questionable ([41]). Requesting checkuser given the continued use of sleeper accounts. Belbury (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Interesting username.  Confirmed to past accounts plus

18 March 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User:2A0A:EF40:E91:D101:5093:743:73F0:723B rolled the History of England article back to a Lam312 sock version, and has subsequently restored Politcsd7's rejected lead images to the Buckingham Palace article. The Politcsd7 account was created a day after the round of 15 January sleeper blocks, and shows behavioral similarity to User:Spicesareyummy. Requesting checkuser for sleepers again. Belbury (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Confirmed to past accounts:
Spicy (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24 April 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

A new account making ten edits to be autoconfirmed and then applying a major "copy edit, general fixes" edit to the protected Economy of England article, in the Lam312321321 style. Same kind of image replacement and subject focus. Request for checkuser per history of sleeper accounts. Belbury (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

10 May 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Four-day ten-edit autoconfirm status to reapply a longstanding subheading preference of Lam312321321 ([42], [43]). Requesting checkuser per history of sleeper accounts. Belbury (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 June 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Restoring old sock paragraphs and images to Economy of England: [44], [45]

Requesting checkuser given the history of sleeper accounts. Belbury (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Confirmed:
  • Another account with an inappropriate username

08 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New 2A0A:EF40:* IPs copypasting content without attribution between Transport in England and Transport in the United Kingdom; both Lam312 targets. Unattributed copypasting and replacing images with other images is a recurring focus of Lam312. The IPs are now claiming to have never edited Wikipedia before. Belbury (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

08 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Picking up edits on English Renaissance and 2024 United Kingdom general election, both edited by the blocked range recently, within five minutes of that block. Belbury (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This particular IP got a wide checkuser block the next day, and a wider range of IPs continued a slow edit war at the latter article until it was protected this morning. An IP from that range gave their thoughts on it all at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#Banned user providing citations. Belbury (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account registered in 2021 does nothing for 13 3 years and makes their first edit at midnight today, applying a dozen small edits to unprotected pages before stepping in to "revert image placement back" on a protected England-related article. Edits are all Lam312 targets of image changes and writing about how the UK ranks in the world, with some removal of critical commentary from Conservative Party (UK) per past socks (eg. User:Essexman22). Requesting a check for adjacent sleepers as this account is very obviously being used as one. Belbury (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to correct you, my account is not 13 years old and I am from the French Wikipedia. I forgot I had an English account and wanted to edit the English Wikipedia @Belbury  ??? Confused Frenchuser232 (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never edited anything England related just the UK which is a separate country Frenchuser232 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, 3 years old. Belbury (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep my account is 3 years old but I am more active on the French Wikipedia and help with a project there Frenchuser232 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conservative Party (UK) edit, you reverted, thx, I made a mistake and didnt mean to delete what I did. I would've reverted it myself anyways. I edited UK page but nothing England. Frenchuser232 (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I edit without an account on the French Wikipedia
I logged in on the english Wikipedia with this account and started to edit the english Wikipedia yesterday
Thx for the comments on my edits, I'm not vandel Frenchuser232 (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@Frenchuser232: You are not more active on fr.wiki. You have only 8 edits (vs. 35 here), and you haven't edited there at all since October 2021. Indeed, you created your account on fr.wiki on October 15, 2021, made 8 edits on that day and haven't edited since. You edited the article that on en.wiki is United Kingdom. Your few edits were reverted because they were deemed to be vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed to past socks as well as
Spicy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

A wide range of 2A0A:EF40:* IPs have been working on various Lam312 targets recently (the Conservative party, English Renaissance, "Economy of..." articles), this particular one has just restored a Rareteddy3 attempt to redefine the British Conservative party as "centre-right to right-wing" ([46], [47]), something which another 2A0A:EF40 IP also tried and failed to add last month ([48]).

Another 2A0A:EF40:EFE:5801:* IP is having a time-wasting edit request conversation about the same thing at Talk:Conservative Party (UK).

Can we get an appropriate rangeblock/topic-block on this? Thanks. Belbury (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 August 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

A new user waiting exactly four days and making exactly ten minimal edits before turning to the semi-protected United Kingdom article, in the same small areas of focus as past Lam312 socks: swapping out images, and editing one of the exact same sentences as recent sock Frenchuser232 to say how the UK aerospace industry might rank in Europe at the moment ([49], [50]). One of their image edits has already been reverted as factually inaccurate.

Requesting a checkuser given past and ongoing usage of sleeper accounts. Belbury (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 August 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account waiting a few days before making exactly 10 minor edits to become autoconfirmed, then immediately making much larger edits to United Kingdom, a protected Lam312 target that recent socks User:Scotlandshire44, User:Frenchuser232 and User:Spainnat22 all took the same approach to.

Usual editing style of moving and changing images (eg. [51], [52] to replace the Topology section map with a photo), changing paragraph breaks and being concerned about where the UK ranks globally ([53]).

Requesting checkuser per the ongoing use of sleeper accounts. Belbury (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm sorry, but what on earth is this?

I was breaking up paragraphs because of the template box, to decrease the size of the article. The difs you listed are not even the same! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonlover33 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Confirmed to recent socks such as My500thaccount and Spainnat22. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lam312321321/Archive&oldid=1242221885"