Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lardlegwarmers

Suspected sockpuppets

• ~2026-11098-84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• ~2025-30168-55 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

In January 2025, previously blocked sockpuppet Manuductive (talk · contribs) added content to the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article about claims from the Manhattan Institute think tank three times (13:49, 21 January 2025; 14:17, 23 January 2025; 19:43, 23 January 2025) and argued for its inclusion on the talk page.

On 19 February 2026, ~2026-11098-84 edit warred to add content to the article about the same Manhattan Institute claims three times (15:52, 19 February 2026; 16:08, 19 February 2026; 16:11, 19 February 2026), citing the same Daily Telegraph link as Manuductive did in their 23 January 2025 edits. Per WP:TAIV data, ~2025-30168-55 is likely to be controlled by the same individual as ~2026-11098-84.

I ask the reviewing administrator to also examine the additional evidence in the addendum, which I have deleted before filing this case to satisfy WP:TAIVDISCLOSE. — Newslinger talk 23:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Clarifying for the record that I have verified that both ~2026-11098-84 and ~2025-30168-55 are associated with the additional suspected sockpuppet listed in the addendum at the time of filing this case. I have blocked ~2025-30168-55 indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Lardlegwarmers. The case result for ~2026-11098-84 will need to be determined by a reviewer who is uninvolved with ~2026-11098-84. — Newslinger talk 16:32, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

How do we view "the addendum" evidence? Guz13 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It is a deleted revision, so it is only accessible to administrators, oversighters, checkusers, and Wikimedia Foundation researchers. Only WP:TAIV permission holders are allowed to access the information, and I have no other means of posting the information on Wikipedia in a way that limits access to WP:TAIV permission holders. — Newslinger talk 06:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Newslinger: I see you also blocked ~2026-13315-49, though I'm not seeing this TA listed here. That TA has made two edits to decrease protection at Talk:Kiwi Farms--one in February, one in March. Could you comment on your decision to block there? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Significa liberdade: Yes, after blocking ~2025-30168-55, I found that

  • ~2026-13315-49 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

  was using the same narrow IP range. ~2025-30168-55's edits focused exclusively on PinkNews (described in the article as an LGBTQ+ publication), whereas ~2026-13315-49 requested the unprotection of Talk:Kiwi Farms; the article Kiwi Farms describes the site as one that prominently targets trans (and other LGBTQ) people. If you believe this overlap is not sufficient to justify the block, I can undo it. — Newslinger talk 22:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  No worries! Thanks for the explanation. They showed up in the unblock queue, and I wasn't sure about the evidence. This makes sense, though. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• There's no admin actions left to take here, so entering a behavioral finding of fact of "likely" and closing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)