Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dylan Florida/Archive/1

28 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Similar usernames making similar edits to the same articles, such as Bloodhound Gang discography, Garth Brooks discography, Garth Brooks, Joe Nichols discography, Lifehouse discography, System of a Down discography, Death Cab for Cutie discography, Bloodhound Gang, American Hi-Fi, 2005 in music, Jack Ingram and Piece by Piece (Kelly Clarkson album).

Suspect user is also behind the following banned accounts:
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric444 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm endorsing the CU to check those accounts for which I provided diffs above.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Diffs
 * Garth Rocks and Reid Florida
 * R83 Rocks and 120.144.150.42
 * M72 Rocks, Rascal Flatts Rocks and Pinmonkey Pat Green
 * ✅ belonging to Dylan Florida:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . . - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

03 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Caldorwards4 (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-opening (by closer request) for Both indef'ed. The socks are usually created in bunches and many make zero or a few mild edits before sleeping, so I assume there are more out there. DMacks (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And: One of this vandal's patterns is to make a change as one acct or IP then quickly vandalize a lot as another on the same page, sometimes leading to editors noticing that the edit before the heavy vandalism is not the "last good version" to revert to. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
You reverted my closure. Every account or IP listed above is already blocked. What else is it you think needs to be done here? TDL (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Both are already blocked, so I'm closing the case. Re-open the case if new socks appear before the case is archived.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am (as I said in my edit-summary of the re-open and the undoing of your close) following the instructions of the previous closer (comment immediately before yours here). I have no idea if User:Vanjagenije wanted to do additional checking or ping a CU, or merely wanted to keep an single ongoing SPI section rather than having it archived in chunks. For me, I sure wouldn't mind having a CU look at the possibility of an IP/rangeblock given the magnitude and sleeper tendencies. I have no objection to clerks doing their clerking, just don't want to see them step on each others' toes and such. DMacks (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Me and TDL are both clerks here. So, if he closes the case, that has the same effect as if I closed it.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you'd like a CU check performed to look at a possible rangeblock, then set the case status to "checkuser" rather than open so that clerks know what you're requesting, and CUs will process your request. (Anyone can request a CU, not just clerks.)  TDL (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

20 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Latest two who blank various Bloodhound Gang related articles. Both tagged and blocked. MO includes creating a bunch of sleepers that awake when one sock is blocked (== not a static IP), and quickly switching among socks so that a well-intentioned recent-changes or other vandal-patroller who uses undo/revert without looking at the history will wind up retaining the previous-to-last vandalistic edit. We're getting these socks for weeks now, and they rapidly hit many and widespread articles as soon as they awake (note, some admins are now deleting the revisions, some magnitude/rate might not be evident to non-admins). Can we get some underlying IPs blocked? DMacks (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC) DMacks (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked a sleeper, evaluated IPs and did what I could, which is not much, sorry to say. Courcelles (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Already blocked and tagged. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

04 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same username- and edit-patterns as usual. Blocked as usual. Logging here as usual, no further action needed at this time. DMacks (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC) DMacks (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing. TDL (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

10 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same username and edit pattern. Eric444 (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked after filing. Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

25 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same username and edit pattern. Eric444 (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Closing. Mkdw talk 17:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

26 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same username and edit pattern. Eric444 (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Obvious. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

06 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Found while performing another investigation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ for the record. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same username and edit pattern. Eric444 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, closing. GABgab 01:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User has been using so many various accounts for so long, I no longer know which edits are the correct edits and which are the vandalism Kellymoat (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You should assume they are all vandalism. But also check back earlier in history because a common MO is bad-hand/good-handing to make it seem like the vandal is correcting a mistakes someone else made. But really, it's just a good way to help us find other sleepers. DMacks (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This apparently belongs at Sockpuppet investigations/Dylan Florida.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. GABgab 15:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The listed named accounts + are ✅ and blocked. No tags per WP:DENY.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * given the history, we've often wound up going to multi-month /24 rangeblocks in this drawer (several admins agree). Let me know if you want more info privately. DMacks (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An e-mail would be helpful, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

similar style of name. same pages edited. same type of edit made. Kellymoat (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The username pattern gives the game away. Please compare these accounts to the archive of Sockpuppet investigations/Dylan Florida, check for other accounts, and possibly evaluate rangeblocks. Thanks very much, GABgab 20:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocks and tags. No other accounts seen. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Took me a second to realize what was going on here, but creation of System of a Down albums discography immediately followed by a (now blocked) IP redirecting to creed + obvious naming convention. Mark Tremonti = Creed, John Dolmayan = SOAD CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added another for doing virtually the same thing. Created Fear Before the March of Flames discography, immediately followed by an IP (now blocked for evasion as well) redirecting to an unrelated band. I don't know much about The Who but I'd imagine this naming convention is also similar to the others... CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Primefac (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

More silly discography combos redirected by the 2601 IP following creation + username combo. See also:  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  10:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, page deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

quack CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, and the IPv6 used as good-hand/bad-hand range-blocked. DMacks (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * THis account is not blocked.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. DMacks (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Quack + username. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Already blocked. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same MO as usual. User:KrakatoaKatie CU-blocked them all (this set includes ones I saw by on-wiki evidence as well as some sleepers she found), as well as a medium-length block on a /64 (I routinely do medium or longterm range-blocking of this size for this LTA). Filing here for record-keeping. DMacks (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Tagged and closing. GABgab 11:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

More music vandalism + username. See contribs. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
You're a clerk-trainee now. You should make a recommendation as to the disposition of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Chrissymad is still very early on in their training. They haven't answered the standard training questions yet, so they probably shouldn't be handling their own cases quite yet. At least those were the instruction I got from Katie when I started a few months ago. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - In any case, the username makes this look pretty clear cut. Given the number of similarly named accounts blocked in July, a check for sleepers is probably a good idea here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the "standard training questions" are, but Chrissmay has been added to the clerk list. Therefore, my comment stands. I disagree with your endorsement of a one-account sleeper check. There are no non-stale puppets in the archive to compare against. I ran the check for other reasons. I found no other accounts based on this one account.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * - As previously mentioned, the username and subject matter makes this a fairly obvious case of WP:DUCK. Please block the new sock indefinitely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * . Favonian (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Bizarre country music sockfarm that has popped up recently; everyone here will makes test edits to the same kinds of articles followed by self-reverts. One of the few edits that actually stick are updating eOne Music links to MNRK Music Group following the rebranding. Given the obvious username similarity and edit pattern, I have blocked the accounts listed here. There are several one-edit accounts I noticed but didn't bother to list here or block. Requesting CU to find all those missed accounts and if possible determine whether there is an older master. Sro23 (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorsing own request. Sro23 (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All of these are confirmed:
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged any of these because it looks like is the oldest account so maybe this needs to be renamed.  On the other hand, who starts numbering things with 59, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an even older account we just haven't found yet.  I also note that some of these accounts show as being non-existent; those look like they were all attempts to create an account which failed due to hitting filter 102 (Abusive account names). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to M59 Rocks. Personally I don't see the utility of tagging in this case, but if another clerk wants to tag, no objection from me. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree tagging seems pointless. Archiving without tags. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Why I think might be a sockpuppet of M59 Rocks:
 * The username of the first account fits the four-noun naming scheme used by many of the confirmed sockpuppets (see the archive).
 * Similar behavior: removing content/redirects from articles without an explanation over one or more contributions before manually reverting their own edits.
 * Mostly edits music-related articles.
 * New account, created shortly before IP 159.196.183.36 was blocked; that IP address edited Edema in the manner described above (that article has been edited by as well), and edited music-related articles too.

Given the above, I think it's likely that the IP is a sockpuppet of M59 Rocks as well.--Kzkzb (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Account indeffed and IP's block extended. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

-- Kzkzb (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Usernames fit the four-noun naming scheme of confirmed sockpuppets;
 * Edited on the same articles as confirmed sockpuppets shortly after their bans ( edited the "Edema" article almost 39 hours after did;  edited "Template:Charlotte Gainsbourg" and "The Empire Shall Fall" about 48 hours after  did, see Diff/1062240405 and Diff/1062721488);
 * shares with the other confirmed sockpuppets the pattern of making test edits before manually reverting themselves; see edits 1062721003, 1062721003, 1062721468, and 1062721468.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - these definitely look like socks based on the edits and naming pattern (it's not just 'four nouns', but the names of country music artists - compare e.g. ). I'm requesting Checkuser because the last round turned up several dozen additional socks so it's reasonable to believe there are more accounts than these two out there. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked sans tags. . -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add a little note that I merged Sockpuppet investigations/M59 Rocks/Archive to here. Today I noticed some blocked Dylan Florida sockpuppets editing their talk pages, and it's all pretty clear this is the same sockfarm. Sro23 (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Pro forma, see below. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Found while doing a discretionary check between Therese Evanescence and Acapulco Fallen. All of these accounts are ✅ to one another and to other socks blocked under this master., . GeneralNotability (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same manual revert pattern as previous socks on same subject area. Username style also similar. Obvious WP:DUCK. Jalen Folf  (talk)  00:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , blocked and closing. Sro23 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
All of these named accounts have been experimenting with personnel in music articles, adding or removing stuff then self-reverting, just like previous socks.

M61 Rocks was tagged by Drmies but not blocked.

Checkuser requested to root out sleepers. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked M61 Rocks, which was already tagged by, he just seems accidentally to have forgotten to block that one. Along with a whole host of other (already blocked) socks, I see:
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs; they have also been doing a lot of logged out editing, but the underlying range is already subject to a long-term block. I'm going to block all the accounts, tag as proven, and request locks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
All five of these accounts follow the same username pattern as the other socks, and these accounts are also editing similar pages as previous socks, and a majority of these accounts were also created in September 2021, the same time that some of the other confirmed sockpuppets were created.  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  03:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)  ProClasher 9 7  ~  Have A Question?  03:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * I checked through the edits from blocked socks to make sure the articles are suitable for our readers. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Indef'ed all. Please note these will require manual cleanup. One of their MOs is to have two socks make consecutive edits (often bad followed by undoing it or something benign), so that a simple "revert" of the latest locks in the preceding bad edit by them. DMacks (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * are all ✅ to each other. The latter two I had previously confirmed to the master but for some inexplicable reason decided not to tag at the time, a mistake which I'll correct now.  I spot-checked a few of the big proven cluster from 01 August 2022; the ones I looked at are also confirmed to today's bunch, so I would assume the entire 01 August 2022 group would be as well, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to check them all. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction: it's not those two which I had previously confirmed but not tagged, it's in 30 December 2021 and who I can now confirm the the 5 accounts listed above.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Tagging, reblocking as cu-blocks, requesting glocks, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Genesis Creed created a page and was followed one minute later by Daft Punk MTV changing it to a redirect. Too soon for coincidence.

At Hollywood Records discography, new sock Miranda Lambert Gretchen Wilson performed the same useless line break addition and line break removal as the previous sock Ashton Shepherd Bucky Covington.

At 1997 in music, previous sock Joe Nichols Keith Anderson added Lula Divinia, etc. Genesis Creed returned to that article to make the same edit with additional info. More socks appeared.

Checkuser requested to make certain. Binksternet (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the above are ✅ to each other, and to previous confirmed socks. I'm not seeing any others at this time. Blocking, will request locks. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)
 * ( original case name)

First, the presumed master and the socks like to make edits to an article, only to then revert it in the subsequent edit Second, the master and socks mostly focus on music (particularly discographies and bands, as linked above) Sometimes the socks interact with each other:
 * to, to ,  to
 * and

CU requested as it seems that this sockmaster is using some old sleepers —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 07:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Very likely this sock farm is a continuation of Sockpuppet investigations/Dylan Florida/Archive. Same username schemes. If the IPs are Australian then we have a match. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Edits such as this one make the Australian connection more certain. An incoherent series of band names much like the username style. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ to each other and previous socks. Blocking tagging and closing shortly. Izno (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Or not.  is the current oldest account by 5 years. Probably needs a rename/tag. Izno (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved, socks retagged accordingly. firefly  ( t · c ) 09:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please merge to Sockpuppet investigations/Dylan Florida. Izno (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why this seemed so familiar. Merged, retagged. Spicy (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Repeating the same behavior as the master and previous socks. See edit histories of and. Obvious WP:DUCKing. Jalen Folf  (talk)  04:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . MarioGom (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ... Spicy (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * These are confirmed. Surprisingly, . Blocked, locks requested etc. Spicy (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Obvious name style similarity. The first sock, Their Rock Is Not Our Rock Bloodlust, repeated the same edit as the previous sock. The second sock, Martina McBride Bikini, built on that edit four hours later.

Checkuser requested to flush out sleepers. Binksternet (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * These two are confirmed to one another, along with . Both already blocked and tagged; will request locks, closing. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Once again overwriting and reverting at. Obvious WP:DUCKing. Jalen Folf  (talk)  02:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ to past accounts. . Closing. Spicy (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)