Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OSUHEY/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


OSUHEY

OSUHEY (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 March 2009
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Tim Vickers (talk)

Both creators of multiple copyright violations dealing with Ohio State Representatives (see accounts' deleted contributions). I'd like a checkuser as I think other sockpuppets are likely. An IP hardblock would be valuable if it is possible, due to the continuing determination of this person to add copyright violations to Wikipedia in the face of multiple warnings.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Tim Vickers (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed Synergy 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
Both blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

04 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by VernoWhitney
[edit]

All accounts focus almost exclusively on Ohio politicians and appear to be throwaway accounts.

STATEHOUSE1839 was blocked on 11 March 2010 and Jansport87's first edit was within an hour and their first mainspace edit was to add some details to 112th Ohio General Assembly, which was created two days earlier by STATEHOUSE1839. On 19 June Jansport87 was threatened with a block and their last edit was on the 20th, which was shortly followed by Gldnegls's first edit, which was to George Distel started by STATEHOUSE1839. Their second edit was to 107th Ohio General Assembly, edited by both prior accounts and later by LAVINA4194. I don't know why they abandoned Gldnegls on 16 July and started LAVINA4194 on 18 July, but regardless LAVINA4194 appears to be their latest account.

The three latest accounts have all heavily edited Ohio General Assembly. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

I know of another likely sockpuppet but I do not remember the name. Marcus Qwertyus 21:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]


06 November 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Wuhwuzdat
[edit]

2 minutes after CAFESDO received a final warning for removing AFD notices, the Earioh account was created, and immediately removed an AFD notice from one of the articles created by CAFESDO , then proceeded to comment on many of the articles created by CAFESDO. A clear case of socking to avoid a final warning WuhWuzDat 20:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

Earioh has been blocked as a likely sock by Daniel Case. I'm going to mark this for close, but please refile if more suspicious activity occurs. TNXMan 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 November 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by VernoWhitney
[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CAFESDO/Archive was brought to my attention, and I believe the accounts are related and would like to confirm that if possible before opening another CCI. An almost exclusive focus on Ohio politicians and continuing copyright problems, as well as abandoning old accounts when threatened with a block all fit the previous patterns of behavior. Given the frequency of account changes and the strong likelihood of (re)introducing copyvio I believe a sleeper check may be called for. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
04 December 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Precautionary check user request. Contributions look like copyvios. Waiting for free trial subscription from gongwer to activate to look for copyvios. Marcus Qwertyus 22:25, 4 December 2010 (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]

We can't comment on the IP. Please list if there're any suspected registered accounts. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the requester to have a look here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because then I'd know where Osuhey lives? Doesn't make sense because if he/she were duck blocked I'd still know where he/she lived and if the duck block was wrong there would be collateral damage. Still waiting for my subscription to activate. Marcus Qwertyus 01:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What subscription? We're not going to reveal the user's IP so you can figure out where they edit from. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gongwer is the primary site that this user uses as a resource. It is behind a paywall. Marcus Qwertyus 05:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No check performed, but I've blocked the IP as a duck. TNXMan 03:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


03 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Contributor almost exclusively focused on Ohio politicians. Image copyright problems matches OSUHEY's pattern (haven't checked the new text content yet). Extensive overlap with articles edited by previous socks, such as at Keith Faber. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2011 (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]
07 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Fits the previous pattern, editing Ohio political articles only WuhWuzDat 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now editing as an IP WuhWuzDat 18:29, 7 February 2011 (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]
10 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same editing patterns. Account created days after block. Marcus Qwertyus 07:32, 10 February 2011 (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]
12 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Behavioral evidence. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to give a bit more detail than "behavioral evidence"... ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Given that OSUHEY is also a repeat copyright infringer anything that would slow them down for a while so we don't have to keep expanding/reopening Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Jansport87 would be greatly appreciated, since at least some of their recent contributions are still a problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Findings: It is highly  Likely that

Advise of questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


13 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

fails duck test., anyone for Ohio Duck Soup? WuhWuzDat 03:04, 13 February 2011 (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]


14 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Editing same articles. Due to the slightly different editing characteristics I think these might be a paid group of editors rather than just one user. Mwycuff abandoned his/her account on the after being SPI'ed as is usual for this user but was not blocked. See archive. Marcus Qwertyus 07:34, 14 February 2011 (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]
21 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same pattern of editing. Not using edit summaries. Marcus Qwertyus 05:13, 21 February 2011 (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; no sleepers found that aren't already blocked.  Frank  |  talk  13:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Editing articles frequented by previous socks. Geographically different from other IPs. Am I paranoid or is this justified? Marcus Qwertyus 12:52, 22 February 2011 (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]
25 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Editing same articles edited by the sockpuppeteer. Also leaving tell tale arbitrary spacing sometimes caused by copy-pasting page titles when using Google Chrome. Marcus Qwertyus 05:29, 25 February 2011 (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, blocked, and tagged.  Frank  |  talk  13:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Editing same articles shortly after being blocked. Marcus Qwertyus 06:40, 26 February 2011 (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]

OhioSenate is  Confirmed, and his underlying IP has been hardblocked. No comment with regards to the above-reported IPs. –MuZemike 09:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


26 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same edit summaries as SierraJaplan. What exactly is a "sleeper"? Marcus Qwertyus 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oakley now blocked. Marcus Qwertyus 02:07, 27 February 2011 (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]

Named accounts confirmed, blocked. TNXMan 02:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same articles and edit summaries. IP located in Dayton. Marcus Qwertyus 20:56, 27 February 2011 (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]

information Administrator note Hakhay blocked and tagged. IP has been autoblocked. Elockid (Talk) 00:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


28 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

editing same articles shortly after block. Marcus Qwertyus 01:01, 28 February 2011 (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: Blocked and tagged by MuZemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Elockid (Talk) 01:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

03 March 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~" 

Marcus Qwertyus  21:47, 3 March 2011 (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 and blocked. All edits by these last two socks have been reverted, one article deleted per WP:CSD#G5, and all other affected articles semi-protected 3 months due to persistent socking plus valid copyvio concerns. –MuZemike 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 March 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Continuing focus on Ohio politicians. Additions include the attempted incorporation of navigation template created by previous sock. Sleeper check requested. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2011 (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, plus Careshit (talk · contribs). TNXMan 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Ohio politicians. Duck block. Marcus Qwertyus 21:19, 28 May 2011 (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]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 21:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Ohio politicians. Editing from Dayton, Ohio again. Marcus Qwertyus 18:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Copyright infringement has been checked. Marcus Qwertyus 19:02, 29 May 2011 (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]

Dale Miller and Karen Gillmor have both been semi-protected 1 year each for excessive long-term socking. –MuZemike 18:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

01 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Back to editing old haunts a day after being blocked. Marcus Qwertyus 05:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE CCI check is complete and all questionable material and one clear-cut copy-paste have been removed. Marcus Qwertyus 05:37, 1 June 2011 (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]

All the IP's edits have been reverted; Andrew Brenner, Linda Bolon, Bill Hayes (politician), Jason Wilson (politician), Kirk Schuring, Frank LaRose, Thomas C. Sawyer, Kevin Coughlin, Chris Widener, and Barbara Boyd have all been semi-protected for 1 month apiece. If I have to semi-protect, or even full-protect each and every article on an Ohio politician out there, I will. –MuZemike 06:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 17:28, 5 June 2011 (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]

 Checkuser note:  Confirmed  Frank  |  talk  20:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged.  Frank  |  talk  20:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel compelled to start full-protecting all of the affected article, as he clearly busted autoconfirmed to do that. However, I don't know if many will be happy about that. –MuZemike 22:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have started with Peggy Lehner and Karen Gillmor, both full-protected 1 week each; I will continue if this persists. –MuZemike 22:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
08 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Continuing exclusive focus on Ohio politics, including (by the named account) the restoration of an edit by an IP 50.17.159.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) previously blocked sock. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2011 (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,  IP blocked. TNXMan 14:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

09 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 01:46, 10 June 2011 (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]
13 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 05:37, 13 June 2011 (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]

50.16.0.0/18, 50.19.128.0/18, and 74.83.169.0/24 blocked 3 months each. –MuZemike 05:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Editing from Dayton, Ohio. reverting my edits to Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 00:11, 14 June 2011 (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]


14 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 03:59, 14 June 2011 (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]
15 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 00:16, 15 June 2011 (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]
15 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 18:10, 15 June 2011 (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 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Copyvios and similar editing patterns such as placing excessive ='s to make sections smaller on Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 13:08, 17 July 2011 (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]
19 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This IP is back at it again. Needs another block of longer duration. Marcus Qwertyus 13:36, 19 July 2011 (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]
19 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

ohio politicians Marcus Qwertyus 15:36, 19 July 2011 (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 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar stylistic choices to Ohio politician articles. Can we get a rangeblock on some of these? Semi-protection to all currently elected Ohio General Assembly congressmen should be considered at some point. Marcus Qwertyus 03:07, 22 July 2011 (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: I mean, you're talking about protecting a boatload of articles there. A bunch of the revelant ones have been protected now, and I blocked all these IPs for awhile. The ranges for the IPs above would be far too wide to really do anything about. Relist as they come in, though, and we can evaluate against previous cases to see if we can do some more effective blocking. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ohio politicians. Not sure about Wanda. Marcus Qwertyus 21:39, 22 July 2011 (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 and blocked. A whole bunch more Ohio politician articles have been semi-protected. Rangeblocking is not going to be effective as his IP-hopping is too random, and the chances for collateral damage would be too great. Again, it's either protection or letting him go. –MuZemike 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Removing redlinks again. Marcus Qwertyus 22:00, 26 July 2011 (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]
  • information Administrator note Alright, I've blocked these four IPs. I've also protected all the articles they edited. And I blocked 75.242.0.0/16 for two weeks. It's a really wide range, but there have been almost no positive edits coming out of it for awhile, so we'll see how it does. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Another one no doubt? Marcus Qwertyus 16:09, 27 July 2011 (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 as being the same as WandaJackson5 (talk · contribs). TNXMan 16:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Re-instating material. Legal threats. Marcus Qwertyus 21:12, 27 July 2011 (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]

information Administrator note I've place a 60 hour block on 75.225.32.0/20. Elockid (Talk) 21:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

01 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 23:41, 1 August 2011 (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 and blocked, along with the underyling IP. Ohio House of Representatives is now full-protected for 6 months 1 month due to socking. –MuZemike 00:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

03 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Re-adding material deleted to Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 11:42, 3 August 2011 (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]

Kris Jordan now full-protected for 2 weeks. –MuZemike 16:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

More Ohio politicians. Marcus Qwertyus 03:46, 14 August 2011 (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 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ohio politicians. I'm throwing Veritas in here just in case it's a good sock, bad sock case. Similar disregard for copyright. Marcus Qwertyus 03:55, 16 August 2011 (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]
  • no Declined - OSUHEY is  Stale for checkuser purposes, and we will not connect accounts to IP addresses. Furthermore, I don't see that you've provided any evidence that these users are related, certainly not for Veritas. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ip is from Dayton, Ohio like the others. There are also tons of checkable socks in the archive if I'm not mistaken. The edit of the ip is characteristic of past socks. The sock accidentally revealed his identity to me through email communications and he is known to have some sort of issue with Bubp. Marcus Qwertyus 07:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Identical editing habits. Marcus Qwertyus 22:57, 22 August 2011 (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 full-protected 2 more articles for 2 weeks. I'm about to give up and recommend a full unblock of OSUHEY. I will recommend just that on WP:AN. –MuZemike 17:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


26 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar editing interests and SPA pattern as the famous sockpuppeteer. See [1]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2011 (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 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Seems pretty obvious. Showed up to remove a G5 on a sockmaster's article and made several other edits in the topic area. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He now moved to

Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

See also the ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:OSUHEY_ban_discussion and the preceding unblock request discussion.   — Jeff G.  ツ 19:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also  Confirmed earlier:

–MuZemike 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Clerk note: I Know this case is closed, but I want a note of what OSUHEY seems to be doing now. Take a look at the edits of OneTwoThreeGo (talk · contribs). Based on the edits, I believe OSUHEY is trying to rack up enough minor edits to get his account to autoconfirmed status, thus getting around all the article protections. I don't really think there's much we can do about this step, but I want it to be documented. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Creating Ohio Politician pages, such as Jim Butler (Ohio politician) which was recently deleted G5 at Jim Butler (politician) Monty845 16:57, 29 August 2011 (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]

information Administrator note Blocked, tagged, articles G5'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

similar pattern of creating articles on Ohio politicians ([2]) —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:01, 31 August 2011 (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 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Pre-created account awhile ago and made some edits to Alabama politicians to break autoconfirmed status. Same editing habits as OSUHEY. Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 3 September 2011 (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]

information Administrator note blocked and tagged; creations deleted and salted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, User:RM82087 is also an inactive sock. Marcus Qwertyus 21:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
04 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

WittTigers created one article at the politicians nickname to avoid the article protection and another right on top of a deleted page. The ip is requesting the deleted articles be deleted at WP:Requested articles and cleaning up the articles created by WittTigers. Marcus Qwertyus 18:57, 4 September 2011 (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]

information Administrator note The IP is pretty obvious, as is WittTigers. I've blocked the IP briefly because I'm not sure how likely it is to change ownership. I've blocked and tagged WittTigers, and deleted and slated the creations. Bohn002 doesn't have the exclusive focus on Ohio politicians that other OSUHEY socks have had, so I'd like to wait for CU input on that one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Cleaning up supposed copyvios for a change. Not sure why this new user would take such a keen interest in this. OSUHEY and the others have been blocked and banned. He has angrily turned down amnesty before and worn down everybody's patience. He'll need to disclose his intentions and gain community support before the ban is lifted. Marcus Qwertyus 23:24, 6 September 2011 (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]

(Just checked this about 15 minutes ago)  Inconclusive at this point. Unless other developments occur here, I'm leaning on the WP:AGF side that this person may not be him. –MuZemike 23:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


JamesBWatson blocked this account as a sock. I think it's likely, but I'm endorsing for sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 11:45, 14 September 2011 (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 FrittataOhio is a straight match. Sleepers appear to be already blocked. - Mailer Diablo 14:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar writing style and habits. Resumed editing right after another SP was blocked. Marcus Qwertyus 03:46, 16 September 2011 (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]

information Administrator note Now reblocked for 2 weeks. Elockid (Talk) 04:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ohio politicians. Editing with Provelt on first edit. Looks like he has found the minor edit button. Marcus Qwertyus 04:27, 21 September 2011 (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, no other accounts at the moment. TNXMan 13:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The ip is removing initiatives policies and positions sections again. Both are making pleas for people to update protected articles. Marcus Qwertyus 20:48, 28 September 2011 (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]

 Additional information needed (leaning towards declining) First off, this IP is not from Ohio. Moreover, is there any other evidence that this may be OSUHEY? Normally, he avoids any and all other topics unrelated to Ohio politicians. –MuZemike 05:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiflyers is  Confirmed, however. 50.19.24.19 is shared, and not all those edits belong to OSUHEY (it's obvious which ones are which). –MuZemike 05:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a few of the edits done by the IP. Both the IP and the account are now blocked so I think this case can be closed now. -- Atama頭 19:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Edit requests after edits were reverted Marcus Qwertyus 22:22, 29 September 2011 (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]

information Administrator note I've blocked one IP for a week and one for a month (because the latter was previously active a few weeks ago). Would appreciate CU input on whether it's worth making those hard blocks and a check for any sleepers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers aren't allowed to check ip socks. Marcus Qwertyus 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: This user jumps around enough that hardblocking would be limited in its effectiveness. As to sleepers, we ran a check one day ago, so I think we can let it go for now. The IPs have been blocked by other admins. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


04 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Quack. Marcus Qwertyus 04:10, 4 October 2011 (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, but no sleepers. TNXMan 14:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

04 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

edit requests Marcus Qwertyus 22:36, 4 October 2011 (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 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

reverting my edits Marcus Qwertyus 12:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynchburg affirms that he knows the ips are legitimate. He will need to be checked first. Marcus Qwertyus 01:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • Your edits are being reverted because they are not constructive, not because we want to sockpuppet or vandalize the site. Resort to the rest of the community, who is also reverting your edits that pertain to these articles. Each edit request is clearly marked with a reference from the official senate journal. Clearly, you are not handling this properly. 76.250.190.255 (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been topic banned. You may not contribute in any form. Marcus Qwertyus 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've mistaken me for someone else, but nonetheless, you've overstepped. 76.250.190.255 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

76.250.190.255 and LynchburgLongIsland are  Confirmed. –MuZemike 01:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LynchburgLongIsland has been blocked, along with another IP range. –MuZemike 01:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

07 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Here's another Marcus Qwertyus 17:27, 7 October 2011 (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 by Favonian. TNXMan 17:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Has taken up the torch of User:FrittataOhio. Marcus Qwertyus 21:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

This "block" is ludicrous. I make a whole-hearted attempt to help this individual clean up information that was stolen from ME and placed on wikipedia, and he blocks ME. How does that make any sense? You can't keep on blocking every individual who contributes to Ohio politics that is not an established user. I created this account to leave this message. If you have a problem with it, unblock the other account, but this is getting ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteShirtLongJacket1 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

information Administrator note The contribs are a none-too-subtle attempt to incite others to evade the ban and there are other similarities with previous accounts that make me comfortable in blocking as a duck. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

quack Marcus Qwertyus 14:37, 11 October 2011 (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. Hut 8.5 14:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for close. TNXMan 15:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11 October 2011 #2
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

quack   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2011 (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 by MuZemike, for the record.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

duck Marcus Qwertyus 21:05, 16 October 2011 (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 1 year. –MuZemike 21:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

section blanking again Marcus Qwertyus 04:14, 19 October 2011 (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]
10 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Do we have to go through this again? Continuing blanking behaviors of FritattaOhio. I need a checkuser for proof in the abuse response case. Marcus Qwertyus 05:55, 10 November 2011 (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]
27 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New account shows up and starts editing in exactly the same space that OSUHEY did. Endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:16, 27 November 2011 (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]
30 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Edit request asking that content added by an account blocked as a sock of OSUHEY be restored. Seems like a reasonable probability its another sock. Monty845 02:46, 30 November 2011 (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 blocked, that's all. –MuZemike 04:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New editor making large additions to an a page created by a sock. Hut 8.5 09:25, 30 November 2011 (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]

Technically  Possible, different ISP and slightly different UA. Elockid (Talk) 02:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

He dives right into article creation and making edit requests. Marcus Qwertyus 05:37, 11 December 2011 (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]
14 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Duck. Blanking LTA. Marcus Qwertyus 01:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Behavioural; DUCK  Chzz  ►  02:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for combining [3] - sorry, I didn't notice before reporting it.  Chzz  ►  02:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

information Administrator note I've soft-blocked 198.234.32.0/19 for six months. HelloAnnyong's range contribs tool shows that OSUHEY seems to be the only editor active on that range, and has been for quite some time. CU input on the viability of hard-blocking the range would be appreciated, but it's a relatively large range so I wouldn't be shocked if the potential collateral damage is too great. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also semi-protected the LTA page, just to give us belt and braces, as the saying goes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


14 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

One more. Full-protection (semi just isn't going to do any good) on Template:Ohio State Senators would be beneficial at this point.Marcus Qwertyus 07:15, 14 December 2011 (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]
04 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Re-block is necessary due to renewed activity Marcus Qwertyus 01:48, 4 January 2012 (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 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Identical edits Marcus Qwertyus 12:39, 5 January 2012 (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]

information Administrator note IP blocked for a week (re-report if they come back using that IP, but since the only edits were today, I think a longer block is a bit risky). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I'm not too familiar with this particular sock, but the mass recreation of deleted articles and behavioral indications leads me to believe this is a new sock. Account blocked per WP:DUCK. Requesting confirmation and whatever is normal for this sock. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2012 (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]
12 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Admitted to copypasting from a blog posting. Definitely worth checking. Marcus Qwertyus 01:28, 12 January 2012 (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]
13 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious Marcus Qwertyus 15:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Blocked. This IP was previously blocked for a week and returned to activity shortly after the block expired, so I've blocked for a month. Hut 8.5 15:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
13 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

First edit is to Joe Schiavoni. Marcus Qwertyus 15:37, 13 January 2012 (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 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Identical editing inclinations. Marcus Qwertyus 05:51, 16 January 2012 (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]

January 27

[edit]

user:174.252.209.103, No action required. Marcus Qwertyus 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09 February 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

More edit requests. Pages need another round of semi-protection. Marcus Qwertyus 22:03, 9 February 2012 (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]

information Administrator note Both IPs blocked for a week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


10 February 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Revert on first edit. 111.1.32.153 is blocked already but is kept here for the record. Marcus Qwertyus 15:15, 10 February 2012 (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 the following are the same:


12 February 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

edit requests Marcus Qwertyus 18:38, 12 February 2012 (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]

information Administrator note IP blocked; I've done another round of semi-protection for the articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

174... is only one in this set who hasn't been blocked Marcus Qwertyus 14:09, 13 March 2012 (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]

174 hasn't edited in several days. Unless there is more recent activity, I'll mark for close. TNXMan 14:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


03 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Recreating deleted pages. Did you read my email HelloAnnyong? Marcus Qwertyus 02:49, 3 April 2012 (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]
04 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Identical appeals Marcus Qwertyus 15:54, 4 April 2012 (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]

A  Likely match. TNXMan 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Re-adding same changes as User:S1076 Marcus Qwertyus 02:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I've just blocked 174.252.199.137 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for repeating the same changes. Hut 8.5 08:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And 23.22.59.92 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Hut 8.5 11:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

23.22.7.40 hasn't edited since yesterday and the others are blocked, so I'll mark for close. TNXMan 17:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

26 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I neglect my duties for one week and this? Marcus Qwertyus 01:55, 26 June 2012 (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. Hut 8.5 09:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Re-creating deleted page. Marcus Qwertyus 22:36, 30 June 2012 (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]


01 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Two blocked ducks. Probably nothing to for further checking as the duck is obvious. Adding report just for archiving. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2012 (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 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Recreation of Bruce Goodwin using the same sources as previous versions of the article and a near derivative work of the same copyvio language used in the same dating back to the very first version posted by other sock RollingRock2009 (talk · contribs). VernoWhitney (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2012 (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]

 Inconclusive. They appear to be editing from open proxies. TomAHouseholder does share the same UA as VDPTKATW (talk · contribs) though. Elockid (Talk) 20:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: - I'm on the fence. There are some differences in the two articles, but they appear strained. It would be easier to compare if there were more diffs. Leaving open for observation and review by other clerks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think this is very likely. The two edits the account has made are exactly OSUHEY's style. The only problem is that OSUHEY socks usually make more than two edits, but he is aware of our SPI processes and often tries to convince innocent users that he's a normal editor. Hut 8.5 12:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing as no action. There has been no further editing from that account but if there is new evidence which still suggests this sockmaster please refile for consideration.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31 August 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Re-creating deleted pages Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2012 (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]
14 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Made edits to old talk sections so it's obvious Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Already showing up as blocked for some reason - is there a rangeblock? Hut 8.5 09:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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


14 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Recreating deleted pages. It's obvious but check please because there will be some stupid dispute about it later. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2012 (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, deleted recreated page. Hut 8.5 09:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21 November 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Creation of Ohio politician article with some copying. Every previous version of the article was created by the same sockmaster (see deleted history). Requesting CU for sleepers and probably other active socks as well. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2012 (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]
27 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP active again after block. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2013 (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]
06 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Re-instating reverted material Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2013 (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 June 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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]

Same as before: matches geolocation of other IPs; editing on Ohio senate articles. Blocked 1 month. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13 June 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Making same edits as User:Dlp83 from March 2012. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2013 (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:  Clerk declined. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Substantially identical edits as an IP on Randy Gardner (politician). Re-creating deleted page Michael Curtin. Unaware of any similarities to the former deleted page. Maybe an admin could check? Linking to a non-exsistant template in this revision which is similar in name to these OSUHEY-authored templates. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2013 (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]

Looks pretty obvious, blocked. FYI the new Michael Curtin page is a bare stub, the previous version was more elaborate. Hut 8.5 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

30 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

active again after block Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (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 for 3 months, since 1 month wasn't effective. Hut 8.5 19:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OSUHEY/Archive&oldid=1146574390"