User talk:Spicy

Sleeper sweep?

Spicy, whenever you have the time, can you run another CU sweep for Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala socks? Rcently, I blocked a few more of their accounts that were caught only after they were auto-confirmed and one managed to get extended-confirmed. Safe to assume that there are a few dozen more ready to be activated. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

One sleeper, Meitie Sangam (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Gokulwasi looks like Anujror from a technical perspective. There are some measures in place to stop them from creating as many accounts, which might be why they are currently focusing on gaming autoconfirmed and extended confirmed. Spicy (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Spicy. Good to the the measures slowing the flood!

Btw, behavioral evidence of these three recent accounts (see for example, the post-block talkpage abuse) would suggest that they are operated by the same person; see also your CU findings from May. So likely that Anujror = TSSJ although I have no idea how that would work with the technical CU data and them apparently using mobile devices to edit. Abecedare (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no chance that it's the same operator behind the keyboard. There are some behavioural differences as well. However, it's obvious that they're both communicating off-wiki, as well as occasionally sharing accounts. Spicy (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Fishytimes196 seems fishy to me

Spicy, do you think Fishytimes196 is Farmer4-89? They're both trolls, they both use Internet speak (u instead of you), they edit similar topics (Fishy has far fewer edits to articles as they've spent most of the time being disruptive on their Talk page and at WP:AN), and they both use the mobile platform.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fairly  Likely. Combined with the behaviour, I guess I'll block. Spicy (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. You made a point that it wasn't a CU block. Any reason why?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Because I wouldn't have blocked based on the CU data alone, and I think it's best to avoid CU blocks unless they are absolutely necessary - there's a tendency for non-CU admins to summarily decline CU block appeals just because they are CU blocks, or worse, refer them to Arbcom. Not that I think that this user should be unblocked... Spicy (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)