Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ConsumersDistributingonline

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

23 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


A series of SPAs on the Canadian company Consumers Distributing have been promoting a supposed American online relaunch. It's possible someone may have bought the right to use the name of the defunct company, but even if so it is not the same company. Article is being rewritten to emphasize limited American content of original company and promote supposed relaunch. Master was softblocked for promotional name and promotional edits [1], at same time as Consumersusonline was hard blocked for spamming and promotional name [2] [3]. Conhui was created within minutes to continue the edits [4] but is not blocked (article was protected for one week). Now that protection has ended we have Consumersdistributing restoring the edits [5] and blocked for spamming and promotional name. Czsewzq was created shortly after Consumersdistributing was reported. It restored the edits [6], then Saqert was created and continued the edits [7], and then Xzeryut was created and continued in the came vein [8].

Requesting CU since there is a pattern of throw away accounts now and there may be sleepers. Not listing a likely IP. Meters (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Conhui. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

04 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Latest SPA pushing supposed online relaunch of former Canadian retail store and adding YouTube videos as a ref. [9] [10] [11]. Previous edits by blocked account: [12] [13] . See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline also Meters (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2017 (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]

  •  Clerk note: @Ivanvector: Could we merge this into ConsumersDistributingonline? Thanks! GABgab 14:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralizationsAreBad and Bbb23: quick question first: in the other case it seems to have been agreed that the two CU-confirmed groups were separate, however from your request here and the clear similarities between the groups (focused editing within a narrow timespan on one particular defunct Canadian retail distributor) I suggest that the two groups represent at best meatpuppets (if not one user editing from two locations) and should be considered under one master account. Would you agree? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Do you want me to run a check against this account? If not, I'm fine with the merge.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: asking if your finding in the other case would back up my suggestion here, but I suppose it's irrelevant. Behaviour suggests we can sort these two groups under the same sockmaster even if it is multiple individuals, and so I'm going to go ahead with the merge. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks for the ping. I was interrupted by stuff I get paid for yesterday but I think I've got them all now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

26 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Shortly after protection ended there were two new attempts ([14] and [15]) to continue adding material about supposed US restart of the defunct Canadian company Consumers Distributing to Consumers Distributing. Both accounts are impersonation accounts named after the previous editor of the article (User:Ivanvector and User:MusikBot respectively). Ivanvecttor already blocked as impersonation account, but listing here to show the pattern. Prev edit by known sock for comparison [16] Meters (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2017 (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]

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • Per WP:DENY I don't think these sockpuppets need to be tagged. Marking case for close. Sro23 (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

29 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Same as the last two socks: Impersonate the last editor to edit the article and restore the mention of a supposed upcoming US relaunch of the website. [17] compare to [18] [19] [20] etc. Meters (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2017 (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]

  • Sock blocked and page semi'd for six months. Closing.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Continuing the campaign to promote defunct retailer Consumers Distributing supposedly relaunching a website in 2017. Compare this account's edits with proven socks: [21] [22] [23]. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I agree. Looking at the user's edits I also found a situation almost identical to the Consumer's Distributing claims on Service Merchandise. Unsourced claims of a supposed revival of a defunct chain as an online merchandiser, but again with a webpage that says nothing but "We are rebuilding the site to be better than ever. Please click here to join our contact list." It's a clone of the supposed Consumers Distributing page. I wonder if these are just scams to get emails. Meters (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention to confirm and check for sleepers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, no sleepers. Blocked, tagged, closing. Katietalk 22:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Servmerc soft blocked for having a promotional name but appears to be another sock account:

  • created shortly after last known sock User:Bingbox was blocked and appeal declined [24].
  • SPA on Service Merchandise, the same article Bingbox had worked on.
  • In particular, restored the highly dubious URL for a supposed relaunch of the company as an online merchandiser (with a website that does nothing but ask for contact information), the logo including the url, and the description as an online retailer [25].
  • The capitalization of the initial word in infobox "Products" lists seems to be characteristic of this editor.

Metalbik:

  • also created shortly after known sock User:Bingbox was blocked and appeal declined (3 minutes before Servmerc created), then made one edit to the same article as Servmerc. There's no issue with the content of the edit [26] (just a minor change to use a US spelling) but other edits by this editor show similar article focus (Shop-Rite (Canada) Woolco Zellers etc and content to edits by other previous socks:
  • created Jack Stupp on founder of Consumers Distributing
  • changing merchandiser URL to go to page version that requires readers to input contact information [27]
  • characteristic capitalization of leading term in infobox Products list [28]
  • restoring edits of blocked sock: compare [29] with [30], [31] with [32], [33] with [34]

Requesting CU since there have been multiple previous socks, and at it appears there were at least two this time so there may be sleepers. Meters (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All edits by Servmerc have been mobile edits, and only the earliest edits by Metalbik and Bingbox were not mobile edits, so a CU may not be all that useful. Meters (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2017 (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]

16 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Account's 11th edit is to restore edits by CU-confirmed sock on page protected due to that sock's activity. Requesting CU for sleepers, per master's history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:59, 16 August 2017 (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]

Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention for sleepers. Red X User blocked without tags pending CU results. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added (and blocked) Lolboat (talk · contribs) for doing exactly the same thing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: all accounts tagged. I have raised the protection level of Consumers Distributing to extended confirmed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quack. Series of SPAs on Service Merchandise, one master's interests. First account (Freasd) created less than one hour after block of last known sock. Combined edits of the 3 accounts [35] have the same overall result as edits by previous socks [36]: an unsourced claim that the defunct company is now in business as an online retailer, with a URL that leads to a page that does nothing but request contact information from the viewer. There is no evidence that this supposed online company is the same company as the defunct subject of the article, or that the online retailer even really exists. Other articles about defunct retailers have been edited in exactly the same way by socks of this master. See Talk:Service_Merchandise#Supposed_restart_as_online_retailer and [37] for example.

Check user requested based on previous history of multiple accounts. Meters (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2017 (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]

I added Swatwomp (talk · contribs), who I've already blocked. There's significant back-and-forth editing at Service Merchandise, I would like insight from CU before starting into blocks for that activity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - It might take me a bit for this one, but I'm working on it. Katietalk 20:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • This covers the 8/23 report as well, and I've placed ECP on Service Merchandise. All accounts blocked and tagged; closing. Katietalk 21:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quack. Today's newly created SPAs. I would have added these to the open report but user: Ivanvector has already endorsed the CU on that one, so I don't know if I'm allowed to do that.

Gallobar and Crankpang combined to restore [38] the same edit just made by users in the previous report [39]. Dishnetbit then recreated the logo for the supposed online store File:Service_Merchandise_logo.jpg (which had been deleted yet again after the recreation by one of the other socks had been deleted as a recreation of content deleted per community consensus [40]) and added it to the article [41]. Each time this logo is created the user creating it claims to own the copyright for the image . Meters (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Nalliop (talk · contribs · block log) who was fiddling with this SPI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2017 (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]

  • Closed per above results. Katietalk 21:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New account restored edit [42] previously made by blocked sock Balltond [43] Asking for CU based on previous history of sleepers and a number of obvious socks that have already been blocked today without going through SPI (User:Britpopal, User:Cassway, User:Lapmaop) Meters (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2017 (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]

 Clerk endorsed - I have been avoiding filing a new case because the new accounts are so ridiculously easy to spot, but a sweeper sleep would be faster, and if technical data reveals anything useful for crafting a better restriction I'm all for it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that the following accounts are related:

 Confirmed that the following accounts are related:

 Likely bordering on  Confirmed that these two groups are related to each other. I don't have anything more than that. I couldn't see any kind of predictable pattern in the technical data. --Deskana (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Blocked and tagged. GABgab 22:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New account restoring infobox content previously added by confirmed socks in articles on Canadian retailers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (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]

Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention to check for sleepers, based on case history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both named accounts are  Confirmed socks of ConsumersDistributingonline, no sleepers found. Blocked and tagged.Yunshui 雲水 08:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Fresh account restoring socks' edits on Woolco. sock sock sock duck Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 11 September 2017 (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]

  • Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - this account only has one edit but technical evidence should confirm. I've blocked another sock (Vlapatito (talk · contribs)) which broke autoconfirmation today and edited through semiprotection to restore past socks' edits; please check for other sleepers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added two more accounts which were created today after I blocked Vlapatito and are editing the same subset of articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Katietalk 00:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of sleepers today:
  • If this gets bad enough, I'm willing to put down a rangeblock, but there's a bunch of collateral. Blocked, tagged, closing. Katietalk 00:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


14 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New account making rapid minor edits on Canadian retailers, topics related to Québec, and edits mentioning Consumers Distributing out of the article's context. Also restoring past socks' minor edits, for example sock sock Muchglobing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also added Maintrapit, whose only edit was restoring content at Big W (UK Chain) in the same manner as past socks. sock sock Maintrapit Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 14 September 2017 (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]

  • Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention and also for sleepers. Also I didn't sign this comment so I will now, self-endorsing checks on both accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Muchglobing and Maintrapit are  Confirmed and blocked. No additional accounts as of yet. I hold out hope that one of these days the devs will develop the ability to blocks specific UAs within a range like we've requested repeatedly. Not holding my breath though.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both accounts tagged. Also noting here that this user has been using socks to upload non-free images to Commons, so we now have a case of cross-wiki abuse. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New account created 5 days after the last set of CU-confirmed accounts was blocked. Has only edited articles on Canadian retailers, making basic copyedits and adding/moving around logos, as previous socks have done. The style of editing, which has included using several partial edits to make one minor change and frequent self-reverts, makes me think the user is trying to game ECP to continue pushing their agenda on Consumers Distributing, which has been ec-protected since August. CU requested to confirm and for sleepers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:59, 12 October 2017 (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]

17 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I've blocked this WP:DUCK: a new account created after a CU run on another case exposed several ConsumersDistributingonline socks, has only made edits obviously seeking to boost their edit count, such as taking 5 edits to change the size of a logo, or taking 10 edits to change an infobox parameter and bold two words in the article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:22, 17 November 2017 (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]

17 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I blocked Yellowfresh (talk · contribs) per WP:DUCK at 14:13UTC today and rolled back their contribs. Stamp124 was created at 14:34. At 16:13, Stamp124 edited Gulf Canada without using the revert function to a version almost exactly identical to Yellowfresh's last edit. This is Yellowfresh's last edit, this is Stamp124's edit, this is a comparison of those two edits. I'm requesting Checkuser because it's genuinely possible this is innocent: Stamp124 did in one edit what it took Yellowfresh and two other socks 134 edits to accomplish, although I think it's an incredible coincidence if so. Also requesting Checkuser in hopes that an underlying IP range can be blocked to put this activity away for a while. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Added TroppoRoxxo per complaint at ANI regarding apparent 500/30 gaming, which this master has a history of. Home Lander (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another account making junk edits in a clear effort to game WP:ECP. Overlaps behaviourally with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline but with certain differences that make me think it's Willschmut. CU requested to confirm. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:03, 27 November 2017 (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]

03 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Here we have an account who, like all of the others, made exactly ten nonsense maintenance edits and went to sleep for exactly four days. Then, puzzlingly, their first confirmed edit was going to my talk page and admitting to being a blocked user making a new account, and referring repeatedly to this specific case. Already blocked; CU requested for confirmation and sleepers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 3 December 2017 (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]

  • Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention per above. I added "Santa Claude" who Bennyco referred to in their bizarre note, and which has made their only edit to a page Bennyco also edited. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. No other accounts seen. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Behaviour similar to User:Gasexpert, a known sock. Bradv 22:56, 8 December 2017 (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]

  • There's nothing to do here. The user hasn't edited in almost a year and a half. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another new account created right after I blocked the last sock, making frequent rapid minor edits on corporate brand articles, fiddling with logos and overlinking, and reverting without explanation whenever someone reverts them. Requesting CU for sleepers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 19 December 2017 (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]

22 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

"Sears Canada official" was blocked as being a sock, This user then returns to edit the same article as the blocked sock, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 01:04, 22 December 2017 (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]

22 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same edits to the same article. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Adding a request for CheckUser. This user has created at least four "Sears Canada" accounts in the last day and has been active under other names since earlier in the week as well. All the ones we know about are already blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Checked, confirmed (including all the other Sears Canada accounts). Apparently no current sleepers. IP blocked, but as I said before that's not always going to be effective. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

29 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sears_Canada&action=history, Obvious sock is obvious. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Yup, right back to Sears Canada as soon as the protection ended to restore the same edit [44] made by blocked socks user:Sears Canada Direction, user:Sears Canada Inc. and user:Sears Canada Meters (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by a couple more I didn't list. Meters (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated note but I've asked for protection of the Sears article for a year - Hopefully this might stop the continued accounts, Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Account now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I've semiprotected the article until a relevant milestone date, roughly three weeks. If sockpuppetry persists after that I will consider longer protection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New account making infobox and logo changes to Canadian retailer articles, pushing autoconfirmed to edit Sears Canada which is protected because of this sockfarm. This one is also linkspamming. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 16 January 2018 (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]

 Confirmed + Wianwalker1960 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Consumers Distributing was ECP protected for six months, and this one waited a total of thirteen minutes after expiry before editing the page. They've also been on a spree of restoring old sockpuppet edits across articles of Canadian retailers, as all of the previous socks have done. Already blocked as an obvious sock; requesting CU for sleepers given the case's history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 30 January 2018 (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]

 Confirmed + Georgemoum (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20 March 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

One-month-old user has amassed over 1,000 edits to the same Canadian retailer and media corporation articles that are this sockfarm's favourite targets, and editing at the same time that the sockfarm's IP range has been active. See history of MATV (Quebec) for example. Requesting CU due to this case's history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 20 March 2018 (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]

03 May 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another new user who has just recently achieved extendedconfirmation in exactly the same manner as previous sock Bill Wong, editing many of the same articles. Requesting CU per history of employing sleeper accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Thank you; also add to their behavior removing pixel sizes from infoboxes for no justifiable reason, as seen here in this and several other edits. I definitely suspected auto-confirmation but they refused to engage and kept reverting after several explanations that pixel sizes are needed in infoboxes. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Salvio giuliano: did you check the reported account? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, he's a likely match to Bill Wong. I realise now that using two templates without explaining further was, erm, probably not the clearest way of expressing my findings. Sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oops, that's my fault. I didn't notice your comment was two separate templates. I've got one too!  Blocked and tagged. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07 May 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

IP's contributions were solely restoring Videoway's infobox px size removals as mentioned in the last report. Nate • (chatter) 07:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

There's no sockpuppets, just restored errors of links of Groupe TVA, now reverted again, I no longer want to restore again previous edits, I don't have time to do it, but if someone want to make correction... This IP address will no longer be used, now I'm arrived at destination, from the train I was travelling with WI-FI in wagons. I used this address as anonymous editor while I was on the ride in train. Thank you!

Still in the train, we wait to leave, still have time to mention that I will restore my previous edits... Oh! we have to leave...

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

  • Range blocked again for 3 months. I don't buy the sockpuppet's "I was on a train" story, and it doesn't matter anyway. Editing logged out to evade an active block is sockpuppetry, even if you are on a train. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone who has tried to edit on Amtrak (and big emphasis on tried; their wifi is barely usable and it took forever to post an edit), this is a hilarious claim. Also, it's a landline Bell Canada IP, so unless they've got a great and solid VPN that can stretch the limits of VIA Rail wifi, it seems unlikely (and we don't call train cars 'wagons' in North America). Thank you for the quick action. Nate • (chatter) 17:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrschimpf: someone whose first language is French might call them wagons. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, did not know that. Nate • (chatter) 18:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another logosize removal , with IP corresponding to Metro Montreal. Nate • (chatter) 23:34, 8 June 2018 (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]

  • IP edits too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Only edits in userspace ( where they appear to be rapidly attempting to get to AC/Conf status just like Bill Wong) do not overlap with past socks. Xover: here, here, here, here etc...

Requesting CU given history of multiple accounts CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:41, 31 July 2018 (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]

  •  Clerk endorsed - user has 496 edits in three weeks, most of them adding and then removing a period from their user page. Which is interesting because Consumers Distributing is not EC-protected, and they should have figured that out themselves when they edited it for their 11th edit. So I do wonder what they're up to, but not so curious as to wait to find out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed.  Blocked and tagged. ~ Rob13Talk 19:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

A sudden series of new accounts agitating to replace the Consumers Distributing jpg logo with an identical png copy, an odd thing common to this sockfarm. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:56, 22 August 2018 (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]

  • Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention per case history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. No unblocked accounts seen. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

25 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

One-week-old account clearly gaming confirmation, making the same sort of OR edits at Consumers Distributing about the brand's potential relaunch. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:45, 25 September 2018 (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]

26 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 26 September 2018 (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]

  • Noting that I have blocked this new account as an obvious sockpuppet of this case. This represents a marked departure in behaviour: they are now making copy-and-paste edits in their sandboxes, then going around asking various users to implement the edits on their behalf. The edit contains the same information that the most recent CU-confirmed socks have been trying to add to the article, so  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Also now using open proxies. Courtesy ping Peter Horn and Hmains. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15 October 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I blocked the first of these accounts for the username violation, but also noticed that like other socks in the archive of this Consumers Distributing-focused case they racked up enough minor cosmetic edits to reach extended-confirmed status in the minimum time required without substantively contributing anything, and then immediately started "housekeeping" the target article. They also mentioned at Meters' talk page that they had made an edit at the request of an anonymous editor during a time period when they could not possibly have made the edit, which led me to investigate and find the second account which exhibits the same behaviour, and also stopped editing entirely almost exactly one hour after the first account was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 October 2019 (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]

-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:37, 16 October 2019‎
  • FWIW, I checked one of the above accounts, Consumers, and it is  Confirmed to previous socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might have more info. Tags updated. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Has reuploaded an assortment of files, including File:Je sais rien, mais je dirai tout poster.jpg, File:Le Jouet poster.jpg, File:La Course à l'échalote poster.jpg, and File:La moutarde me monte au nez poster.jpg, which were all previously uploaded by socks. First four edits were also to userspace, only adding a period and then erasing it, a common behavior of sockpuppets. Home Lander (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP added three of the files to articles; adding it here for documentation. Home Lander (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, added another IP that re-introduced a file to an article. Upon further inspection, both IPs appear to be OpenVPN proxies. Home Lander (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2019 (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]

23 June 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Already identified as sockpuppet and blocked in frwp: CU and blocked . Jean-Mahmood (talk) 19:04, 23 June 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]

29 June 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The account is blocked on frwp. Jean-Mahmood (talk) 18:58, 29 June 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]

05 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This appears to be yet another sockpuppet, now trying to submit a draft. Other than edits to Draft:Consumers Distributing, the edits appear to be trying to game either autoconfirmed or extended autoconfirmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 5 August 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]

  • Likely webhost. There's a globally locked Krajoyn sock on the same IP.  Blocked and tagged based on behavioral evidence. I'll request a global lock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quacking, recent disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 12 August 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]

  •  Check declined – Checkusers will not link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy.. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP has been proxy-blocked, closing. Mz7 (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a sidenote that the proxy side of the ISP is worth exploring, will do so at WPOP when I find some spare time. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quacking, recent disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 12 August 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]

  •  Check declined – Checkusers will not link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy.. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP has been proxy-blocked, closing. Mz7 (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a sidenote that the proxy side of the ISP is worth exploring, will do so at WPOP when I find some spare time. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Pro forma per CU. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:18, 19 August 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]

Per a combination of technical and behavioural (including xwiki) evidence these accounts are likely (or confirmed to) each other and likely ConsumersDistributingonline. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked and tagged -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

These IPs have been restoring edits made by recent socks; compare [45] to [46]; [47] to [48]; and [49] to [50]. In at least one instance, the only difference between the IP edit and the sock account edit was because the sock's upload was deleted but not reuploaded to Commons (compare [51] to [52]). I'm compelled to point out as well that the reporting of a "/40" IPv6 range instead of a "/64" is because that range is already under a partial CheckUser block from, of all articles, Consumers Distributing. Needless to say, there's some quacking here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 20 August 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]

  • Blocked the v4 IP. NinjaRobotPirate, the /40 is your CU block, so pinging you here (not that you can comment on any connections to particular sockmasters, of course). I think the block needs to be upgraded to a full block, but I can see there's going to be collateral damage and I don't want to full-block a /40 for three months (about how long it would need to be in order to not count as a reduction of a CU block). Given that this sockmaster seems to be most of the activity on that range...full block for a month, maybe? GeneralNotability (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My CU range blocks generally can not be tweaked, loosened, or hardened. They're designed to work only as I set them. Changing them will either make them useless or potentially cause massive collateral damage. I did a different set of overlapping range blocks (two /41s on the same IP addresses as the /40), so the IP range is both hard blocked and soft blocked. Hopefully people will just leave the whole complicated mess alone. Since all the IPs are blocked, we can probably close this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New user re-uploading File:Wild Country 96.5 logo.png five days after it was G5ed. The file was uploaded originally by the Safariwi sock. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:17, 25 August 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]

  • I've blocked and tagged the user based on behavior. I'll leave the CU request in place. Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - given the number of recent socks in the archive, a CU sleeper check would seem prudent. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate and Zzuuzz, who I believe are familiar with the recent socks. Girth Summit (blether) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, also:

And ftr, this one is likely: Special:AbuseLog/30689980 -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Tagged, Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

C965 Uploaded File:Wild Country 96.5 logo.png (on enwiki, not Commons, unfree fairuse file), previously uploaded by blocked socks in this case (Country Wild (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), Safariwi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)). The username is also potentially a username policy violation, but that's borderline and less significant here than socking. 78.138.52.31 Added the image to WVNV two minutes after the upload. 78.138.52.31 also added an image to WPAC (FM) that was uploaded to Commons by blocked sock Safari web (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), so that's a double connection of the IP here. May be worthwhile block the IP (or small range?), as it appears pretty stable and is used in logged out editing to obscure edits here - it also appears to be a proxy/vpn as it is blacklisted by a few different lists. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I got a weird message on the talk page of my wikidata page (which I rarely, if ever, use) that turned out to be an edit request from 2605:B100:523:5D88:D995:ABF:DC2E:56A1 (currently blocked on en wiki). The edit request seems to echo the request made here by blocked user Skycrapyrus. Perhaps this means 2605:B100:523:5D88:D995:ABF:DC2E:56A1 should be blocked as a sockpuppet of ConsumersDistributingonline. RFZYNSPY talk 02:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RFZYNSPY:, User:Vituzzu globally locked the /41 range now so hopefully that will resolve this.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Blocked and tagged. No comment on the IP address. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02 October 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recreating File:Wild Country 96.5 logo.png in the same form of three previous socks.

Note that this account also gamed AC status (4 day incubation, 10 edits in user space mainly to the G7ed User:Wild965/sandbox/Alentron) prior to this file upload.

A minute after the upload, 59.3.77.55 added the image to WVNV so the connection of the IP to Wild965 is clear. There are signs the IP (Korea Telecom) is part of a VPN or proxy (e.g. Spur lists it as vpn gate and [https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/59.3.77.55 whatismyipaddress has a " Suspected network sharing device").

Asking for CU (for the account, not the IP) as previous CUs in this case uncovered additional socks and it is unlikely this SPA is the sole account active. Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I've placed a global lock request on the suspected sock that was tagged here, but they were better off not being tagged here per WP:DENY, so a global lock request will do just fine. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I noticed that Wild965 was tagged as suspected. My apologies if I made a mistake here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The registered account is probably him, and I blocked IP as a proxy. The most obvious socks are already blocked, but it's always possible there are more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 October 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Waited till they just made extended confirmed to edit Consumers Distributing, got edits by machine translating movie plots from other wikipedias. That probably needs a mass rollback. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 5 October 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]

  •  Clerk endorsed - I don't fully understand what's going on here. There's no doubt the 490 edits they made to User:Gerry Scott/Beillevaire/totranslate followed by waiting exactly 30 days to edit Consumers Distributing was gaming ECP. But the conversation at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Gerry_Scott combined with several edit comments that reference french translations (especially this one) are just enough to make me wonder if this is really a sock vs just somebody who got duped into doing proxy edits, or maybe translation-for-hire, so asking for CU. The only real question is whether they get blocked as a sock, for for WP:NOTHERE -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Inconclusive, the user is using proxies and compromised servers. But here are some more relevant details:
    • Along with gaming ECP, they originally gamed AC by making 10 random edits on the same day they made their account. 4 days later they created the "totranslate" user page and subsequently made 490 edits to it in one hour and eight minutes, all of them garbage edits like adding a diacritic to one letter, or just adding and then removing garbled nonsense. The 490th edit to that page (500th overall) carries an edit summary indicating they decided not to translate it, but it is clear they never intended to.
    • They were recruited by CDo (via 45.129.96.135 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) on wikidata), which is also a compromised server and is already locally blocked. Global lock requested. Recruiting via sister projects is a known CDo behaviour, hence the editnotice in the article.
    • Gerry Scott had never edited wikidata before 45.129 went there to recruit them, but still responded 8 minutes after the IP's initial message. Their entire conversation is contained within 30 minutes. In that conversation, the IP replaced their own signature with Gerry Scott's ([53]). Neither has edited wikidata since.
    • Gerry Scott's only edit to Consumers Distributing added the same 10,000-ish bytes of point-form history that all of the previous socks have tried to add, even though their edit summary mentioned not making the sock's requested edit.
  • NOTHERE would apply just based on the obviously bot-assisted EC gaming, but in my opinion this is a frankly sad attempt at a WP:GHBH account.  Blocked and tagged. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18 December 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Originally reported at another SPI, Никита-Родин-2002, but moved here after their latest contribution really gave it away.

They had been gaming permissions and have about 500 deleted userspace contribs. Discussion from the original SPI below. Checkuser for sleepers, since this one slept for about a month.

I initially reported both this user and Knopfler56 due the similarities in their gaming behaviour. I then removed it due to lack of evidence. However, since seeing that Knopfler56 is a confirmed sock, I am now resubmitting this, since this users behaviour was very similar to theirs. Checkuser requested, since it seems to regularly turn up sleepers with this sockmaster. Mako001 (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doubtful about CD 2022 whose edit do not fit the normal pattern. The following editor, however do, so I'm adding it to be checked. Hzh (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hzh, If it helps, most of their contribs are deleted. After the first few edits there were about 500 userspace dummy edits and then a couple of mainspace edits. the userspace edits were between the last edit on the 5th and the first on the 11th, all within an hour or two. (so I recall anyway, since the specific contribs are deleted.) Knopfler56 did much the same thing? Does this fit the pattern or is there some other way that it doesn't fit? Mako001 (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the first time I have seen the editor make so many dummy edits, so that is not typical. In the past the editor may make some dummy edits, but not so many. The edits by CD 2022 that remained don't fit the pattern, while those by Knopfler56 do fit. Hzh (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Clerks. I'm moving this to a different SPI. I have found a much more likely sockmaster. Moving to the ConsumersDistributing SPI. Hzh, I will definitely trust your intution a lot more from now on! Mako001 (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the dummy edits they also did some RC patrol, and tried to request EC status after it was revoked for gaming. The real clincher was when they uploaded an image to remove a redlink added by a block evading IP, without even doing anything to the article. Oh and the username, CD obviously standing for consumer distributing, and 2022 being when they think they'll be using this account. Methinks that they will be disappointed if they believe that. I'm not going to notify them, since I'd rather they kept to one account until this gets blocked, as it will make the block evasion reverting much easier. Mako001 (talk) 08:50, 18 December 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]

  •  Clerk endorsed for a check on CD 2022. Everyone who's ever tried to upload File:Wild Country 96.5 logo.png has turned out to be a ConsumersDistributingonline sock: [54]. ECP gaming fits the pattern for this sockfarm as well. Please check for sleepers, as they tend to have a few. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best I can do is  Possible to Gerry Scott. On the surface, these two look Red X Unrelated, but there's a lot of proxy use, so  Inconclusive might be a better description. For what it's worth, there's some overlap in which proxy is being used, which may or may not mean anything.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation for sure. There's extensive notes in cuwiki; I'd recommend any future CU's working this case read that over to get the background. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, the nature of the technical data makes sleeper checks problematic. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged as suspected given the persistent reuploading of the same image. Lock requested. Closing case. Sro23 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18 December 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Cc981's only real contributions have been to upload File:Cat Country 98.1 logo.png and File:PAC 98.7 logo.png; both appear to be reuploads of logos previously uploaded by previous socks. (The username also fits a pattern of some recent socks of naming after the branding, whether an abbreviation thereof or in full, of a country music station in the northeastern US, in this case WCTK "Cat Country 98.1".) The IP was the one to actually add those logos to WCTK and WPAC (FM). The quacking is probably more than enough for this one. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 18 December 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]

Both blocked, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline/Archive&oldid=1138668880"