Cannabis Ruderalis


PlainAndSimpleTailor

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

21 April 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  • Edits immediately focused on the article where their actions had them blocked
  • Geographic location (puppeteer location public as edited as IP and regularly slipped between IP and logged-in edits)
  • [1] removal of exact same material that blocked user sought to remove repeatedly, and without mentioning removal in edit summary - frequent tactic of blocked user
  • [2] – references to the article being messy (as here); labelling editors as nationalists/nationalist arguments (as here & here); need of an "overhaul" (as here)

[blocked user confirmed same as previous IP editor here] Cambial foliage❧ 13:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Of particular interest also is this edit, where they passively aggressively demand that I think perhaps one or more of the more passionate editors should take a break from the page. This is similar to this post on the same talk page by 79.66.34.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) where they say I think perhaps this editor should consider taking a break from this article. PlainAndSimpleTailor used the similar 79.66.51.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as they admitted here. FDW777 (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


15 September 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Numerous SPAs in the last few days all focussed on the removal of a factual sentence at United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, see 212.187.244.81, 185.104.136.29 and 78.149.2.89. PlainAndSimpleTailor's entire focus was on the removal or amendement of that sentence, see for example this, this and this, and this by previous sockpuppet detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlainAndSimpleTailor/Archive#21 April 2021. FDW777 (talk) 16:16, 15 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]

  • Page has already been semi-protected, so closing this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12 June 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The sockmaster earlier edited as IP 80.42.39.51, and later as others in the SPI archive. They confirmed their identity as 80.42.39.51 here. Some of the diffs below refer to this earlier account.

The sockmaster edited almost exclusively on the page United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and some closely related pages. They repeatedly sought to change a statement about the purpose of the legislation to say "in the opinion of Michael Dougan" or "in the opinion of some academics".

"Michael Dougan believed..." "Michael Dougan suggested that the bill as originally introduced could restrict.." "Several academics suggested that the bill as originally introduced could restrict.." "However, several academics have argued that while the powers remain" "several academics have argued during the introduction of the..."





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 think you're probably right that this is the same person. The IP hasn't edited in a month so I'm not going to bother with a block, but I will semi-protect United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 indefinitely (since it's already been protected twice before), which should hopefully reduce further disruption. Closing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply