Special:Contributions/2605:E000:8401:8800::/64: that extremely insulting tone plus unfounded accusations plus dubious edits makes this a strong suspect. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now edit warring at Clade. ----Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This guy also looks likely 51.7.34.184 (talk · contribs) – non-stop insults in edit summaries, editing Formula One articles, which our man quite frequently does. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

37.152.231.121 (talk · contribs) looks a lot like him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Favonian (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

82.132.223.46 (talk · contribs) same guy, restoring one of his previous IP's edits at He's Gonna Step on You Again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 46.208.152.91 (talk · contribs): The usual debolding introductory text and snarky edit summaries. Number 57 21:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And more recently:

• 109.144.22.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.144.216.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP-hopping anonymous user posting way behind the scenes to complain that somebody else is "pretending to be new". They geolocate to the same corner of England as the last couple IP's in the "confirmed and suspected" list. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ria cara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The usual hallmarks of his MO, incl snarky comments and edit warring. Although this account was initially active 5-9 October, the current activity commenced on 24 October, just after the last IP block. Bahudhara (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a likely candidate, this edit [1] removed an image gallery which is a common thing they do. Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Blocked. Sro23 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was a user recently banned for a CU association of the long time abuser? I'm a bit perplexed by it. – The Grid (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

37.152.231.109 (talk · contribs) has the usual hallmarks of obnoxious edit summaries, random editing, sprinkling of F1 articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The very same. Blocked for a month. Favonian (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 46.233.112.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Similar bitey tone as BKFIP, once again remarking at Transcendental about how they have no right to be instructing about policies. See Special:Diff/981332256, where almost identical comments were made, the IP was blocked as a confirmed candidate. IP details. Fits the criteria, O2 IP in London. — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for being profoundly tedious. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 46.233.112.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Exact same reasons as above. — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently interacted with User:Toleco and wish I knew they were a sock. Because they were active, I thought it was prudent to let others know. Please advice, what's best way to document this. I tried at User talk:Toleco Shushugah (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember who started this tradition, but I've been documenting sock accounts I block here. It probably goes against the spirit of WP:DENY, as keeping a collection of sock users may serve as a sort of bizarre shrine, but my reasoning is someone potentially could find it useful in terms of tracking the LTA. Sro23 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

103.100.11.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - usual “I’m right, everyone else is wrong” attitude. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the above - Redrose64 has also been reverting these edits too. Turini2 (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

86.14.189.55 (talk · contribs · count)

Looks BKFIPish. Can I have a second opinion? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into this user a few weeks ago when they edit warred across multiple articles removing the word "famously". The account has since been blocked User:Relsekk but they have returned to some of the same articles removing the word famously using Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:9001:1F01:3D2D:A5C7:4AAE:4C0C -- GreenC 17:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think about this Wrongcad (talk · contribs)? Somewhat snarky edit summaries and removing bolding from election/referendum article intros rings some bells. Cheers, Number 57 11:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]