@Ecnerwal We've seen your repeated flags, but we don't have any local evidence of sock-puppetry or vandalism, just a very bad answer. You mentioned deleted comments in your most recent flag, but those are all either rude comments from this specific user, or comments from others who were critical of the answer. If you can identify accounts of sock puppets, or any conduct that violates SE policy beyond the obvious rudeness in comments on this answer, we're happy to take action based on it.

Well, today's flag was for a different user account (which I identified in the flag) that made an edit attempt here in cooking whihc I rejected as vandalism, the language of which was pretty clearly the same individual as the poster of the downvoted question.

In comments deleted on this question they were belligerent and threatening, and this seems to be the approach they have taken to "following through"

I'm not sure if I can get enough back-trail info on the rejected edits at DIY.se to ID other sockpuppetry - several 1 rep usersome number accounts.

This was today's activity here: cooking.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/91152

Here's one from Jan 22, here, differ numerical user:

cooking.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/91075

An anoymous attempt at DIY.SE from Jan 11

diy.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/174027

Another at DIY.SE from Jan 11, again "anonymous user" (possibly deleted sockpuppet?)

diy.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/174004

Reads like the same mind behind the verbiage to me.

The Jan 22 at cooling user: cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107916/user107916

^l^k^

I suppose if they've bothered to VPN their various account creations adequately that you can't verify sockpuppetry on the 3 samples here in cooking, they have. If not, there's your evidence.

Oh, deleted comments on the question? you had flagged the answer :/

anyways, we'll look into it all, thanks for the pointers