Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onlinenow/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Onlinenow

Onlinenow (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
30 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The account for user Billy Hathorn has been indefinately blocked. I have reasonable suspicion that the user is using IP 68.94.172.175 for trivial, unverified edits in Laredo, Texas and other pages regarding Texas, Texas politics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.94.172.175 Cheezwzl (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I have been dismayed to see anonymous IP edits that I believe are clearly the work of Billy Hathorn during his block. It is clear that he is strongly motivated to make minor fixes in articles he has created or tended in the past. I had hoped that he would request an unblock, instead of continuing to use IPs in this fashion. I am disappointed to see that he has chosen to become a sockpuppetmaster. The IP named above is the first one I flagged as Hathorn. Other ones that I have noticed are:

How do you really know these IP addresses? Can a CheckUser verify this if they are accused of sockpuppetery. They may bypass the block really easier but its difficult to edit in semi-protected pages. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen a large quantity of Billy Hathorn's work, I have no doubt that these are his edits. --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • information Administrator note I've blocked the IP for a week on behavioral grounds. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I marked the case "open" after adding two more IPs. Both are clearly Hathorn, based on behavior. I have not evaluated the stability of those IPs (how frequently the assignments change) to determine what kind of blocking might be appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: the two new IPs geolocate to the same area as each other, one being a college IP. The other one is in the same state. Alexandria (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suspected sockpuppeteer is known to work at the college... --Orlady (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I blocked 72.178.222.89 for 10 days. Hathorn has been using that IP since at least 16 October (so it's a fairly stable assignment), and has continued to use it during this discussion. As I have said earlier, he should be requesting an unblock, not evading the block. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I renewed the school block on 65.116.31.66. We're done here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
06 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

A photo of the blue ridge mountains which Billy Hathorn placed on his talk page after he was blocked has subsequently been placed on the blue ridge mountain page by a user which I have reasonable suspicion is the sockmaster. Only a few clicks from that page led me to believe that Billy Hathorn likely abusing multiple accounts as the suspected sockpuppets have made edits in his style and focus. Cheezwzl (talk) 11:53, 6 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]
01 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP address 72.178.222.89 was previously blocked under Block Evasion (Billy Hathorn) for a period of one month commencing December 11, 2011. There is reasonable suspicion that the sockmaster has again anonymously resumed editing; the evidence being based upon the the author's editing style and focus.Cheezwzl (talk) 13:25, 1 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]
29 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See this page for discussion of the WP:DUCK evidence. CU is requested for confirmation and to see if there are other socks. Orlady (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add permadiff to above discussion, for archive purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 29 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]
  • It's  Likely that HutchinsonKS and Billy Hathorn are the same. There are significant anon edits here as well. Before I consider giving more detail on that, can someone look into the edits of HutchinsonKS to see if the problems that led to Billy Hathorn's block persist?
    Amalthea 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found an anonymous IP that I identify as another sock on WP:DUCK grounds: 71.40.85.2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and am adding to this report. As for whether the problems that led to the Billy Hathorn block still persist, unfortunately the answer is "yes." There were some serious issues of copyvio and reliance on non-reliable sources that are also present in some of the recent edits by HutchisonKS. An unblock request for Billy Hathorn was rejected as recently as 3 February. As noted in the rejection of the unblock request, there is a massive CCI investigation that is still incomplete. The situation is frustrating. Billy was a very productive contributor who could and should learn to edit within policy in order to be unblocked, but he refuses to do so. --Orlady (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added another IP, also on behavioral grounds: 71.40.247.247. --Orlady (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I see one example of continued close paraphrasing was Carl Stracener.
        Since you have already identified both IPs used for the anon contributions I have nothing more to add though. With very few exceptions all edits by those IPs appear to have been made by the same person that edited as HutchinsonKS.
        Amalthea 09:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarification: All edits since December 2011 at least, I can't speak to edits made before that. Amalthea 12:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've gone ahead and blocked the named account given the CU results and the overlap in behavior. I'm looking at how extensive his additions are now, in view of persistent copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's cool. I'll also point out that the autoblock is engaged for 71.40.85.2. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Billy Hathorn was indefinitely blocked by User:Ironholds in September 2011 for violating BLP by using unreliable source and for ongoing and persistent copyright problems after multiple warnings and intervention efforts at ANI (see conversation at time of block. He has continued editing using primarily IPs. I was notified on 17 June that he was still editing as IPs. One of these, 68.203.251.2, was self-professed to be his IP (see this conversation with Amalthea). He was advised to negotiate an unblock but did not. Since there was no doubt about these IPs, I blocked both. Today I noticed Thebalconylife editing one of the articles I had watchlisted from the IPs use, and I think there's little doubt it's Billy using an account he created when he wanted to start a new article on Rick Hardcastle. This is one of many articles he shares with that IP ([1]; stalker report). According to the contribution surveyor, Thebalconylife has edited 42 different articles; if stalker is accurate, he shares 17 of those with Billy's confirmed IP and 4 with the other (stalker report). There's almost enough quacking for me to block myself, but this page recommends CheckUser for "Evasion of community-based bans or blocks", I think there may be value in a sock-drawer check, and I would like a second set of eyes. :) I don't know what else to do with Billy than WP:RBI as he continues to not quite "get it" and he will not stop. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 27 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]
Hardblocked a few IPs for a very long time. WilliamH (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Blocked and tagged, per William H; and closing case. AGK [•] 00:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18 July 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The IP account has returned to one of Billy Hathorn's favorite haunts, adding back content previously added by another of Billy's socks (IP edit, content as added by Billy.) A check to see where else the IP has been brings me to new article J. D. Grey, created by a new editor User:NOminister1. The ip found it the day of creation, and it is very much in line with Billy's article interests. The registered user has additionally edited Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Union University, Louisiana Baptist Convention, List of people from New Orleans, Louisiana, List of people from Louisiana (68.203.252.2 is a Billy Hathorn IP and is active in this and the following articles), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paducah,_Kentucky&action=history Paducah, Kentucky, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. That's a pretty heavy overlap in articles for such a short time of contribution. There may be more; Billy's socks are legions. For that reason, and because he is evading a block, I believe we need a sock drawer check. I have already blocked the IP but not yet blocked the named account. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 18 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]
20 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP caught my eye because of the odd edits they were making to TV show infoboxes. Then I noticed the IP's addition of various "guest stars" to old television show articles. Having worked on many a old (somewhat obscure) television show articles, this is one of Hathorn's MO's - basically spamming little known actors' names into television show articles as guest stars. Ricky Kelman seems to be the person he's pushing now. Note the similar wording by the IP here to this content added by Hathorn some time ago. Hathorn's wording and actions of attempting to link these character actors to as many articles as possible is fairly obvious to anyone who knows his work. Pinkadelica♣ 15:12, 20 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]
  • All edits of this IP are  Confirmed Billy Hathorn. Started editing June 27 which coincides with some IP blocks noted in the archive. Amalthea 15:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I have no doubt that this is Billy and have already blocked the IPs. I came upon this when I noticed that one of the IPs was restoring content placed previously by Billy Hathorn (Examples: Chris Broadwater, removal and restoration; Lenar Whitney, removal and restoration...IP identified in June. This led me to Jimmy Higdon. From there, I see that the other IP has been revisiting some of Jimmy's favorite articles ([2]) and also restoring material previously placed by Billy. [3].) It's not much of a stretch that User:Kycolonel4 (which I have not yet blocked), who created the article where these two IPs intersect, is a new registered sock. Since Billy is indefinitely blocked and since he has quite an extensive habit of socking, a sock drawer check is needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've blocked both the named accounts plus a few more. I've G5ed all of his new articles - nothing else seems to be working with Billy; maybe this will encourage him to work within process. :/ Just waiting on some IPs to clean up after. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 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.

  • I agree with MRG that Kycolonel14 looks like Billy. The Jimmy Higdon article looks like many of his political bios, particularly in the types of details it includes. The article Smoky Mountain Opry was started by User:Pigeoncompany (I subsequently merged it with a pre-existing article); that account was blocked as a username violation (because it looked like a business promoting itself), but I now think it was Billy. The images in the Smoky Mountain Opry article were uploaded to Commons by Billy; he apparently visited Pigeon Forge on vacation recently. I will add Pigeoncompany to this request. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Meh, new ranges.  In progress ... Amalthea 13:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shot you a mail, MRG. Amalthea 14:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so to list them here again, likely per technical data and confirmed by behavior:

Moonriddengirl has I believe already blocked/tagged the accounts and deleted or reverted pages and contributions. I don't know whether further checks of those contributions are required?
I'll make a list of the anon contributions that need to be checked, either here or directly at the SPI. This will take me a while ... Amalthea 09:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13 November 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP's contributions are habitually those of Hathorn's favorite topics: Louisiana and Texas politicians and comparatively small communities. That alone wouldn't be enough (probably lots of people find those topics of interest), but damning is this IP's pattern of adding photos that Hathorn uploads at Commons. Look at three examples:

I could check other diffs, but I'm tired, and anyway I'm confident that this is sufficient evidence. An unrelated person who's not registered may well start to pick up on these contributions (e.g. the person likes Hathorn's images and finds them useful, so he watches Hathorn's uploads), but it's rather unlikely. It's nearly impossible that an unrelated person would be adding these images within two or three minutes of upload, and it truly is impossible that an unrelated person would know what precise name Hathorn was going to pick for the Huckaby image. This is clearly Hathorn editing logged out. Of course I understand that checkusers won't say anything about this IP address, but given his history, is it appropriate to request a checkuser's attention for sleeper accounts? Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The addition of minor genealogical details, as in these edits to Ashland, Louisiana (including a detail about a woman whose maiden name was Hathorn), is one of Billy's trademarks. --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: I blocked the IP for a short time after observing that Hathorn continued to use it in the last few hours. --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing for now. The IP's block is set to expire within a day; if he returns under it, the IP should be blocked for at least a month.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23 November 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Billy Hathorn is back using an IP address to spam pages with links to obscure actors' article that don't exist. He's hitting old television show articles like he did before with another IP, 24.170.75.238. Both IPs use similar wording as Billy Hathorn (see example 1). I'm too tired to dig for more examples but having dealt with Hathorn for the past few years, his editing style is easy to recognize. He focuses on older television series articles and typically adds obscure character actor links (whether they exist or not) to them in an effort to build up "What links here" thingy. Pinkadelica♣ 06:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding 173.147.34.137 as the IP is focused on Laramie (an obsession with guest stars) and Louisiana related articles, both of which Hathorn and his IPs have been editing lately.
Also also adding SyntheticRed. User created two obscure character article actors, Brett King and Karen Sharpe, whose names (s)he is spamming throughout the same articles that Hathorn frequents. Note SyntheticRed's wording/spamming to Billy Hathorn's wording/spamming. Also note the creation of Brad Johnson by Hathorn to the creation of Karen Sharpe by SyntheticRed. Both are obscure actors no one has ever heard of (Billy's MO), both only cite IMDb as sources, both link USA and both include county names in the infobox which I've rarely seen anyone do. Pinkadelica♣ 05:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

The stalker comparison is... interesting.[4] Lots of late 1950's-early 1960's shows. Sure, Billy has a ton of edits, but some of these common articles with SyntheticRed's less than 200 edits are interesting. I can see this edit from SyntheticRed as an expansion of the section added by Billy here, and I'm not going to spill any more beans, but this is mighty ducky to me. Doc talk 12:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I've blocked the two named socks indefinitely. The IPs are stale. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14 December 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Hathorn is back yet again adding obscure actors as guest stars to the same articles he typically edits (ie Rawhide, other older shows). Similar wording from IP editor when adding content here and here compared to one of Hathorn's similarly worded edits. Can we just ban this guy and delete the articles on the obscure actors he's created already? This is what seemingly keeps him coming back. His goal seemed to be to spam names throughout the project so the articles aren't orphaned. It's irritating to have to clean up after his insertion of marginally notable people he thinks are interesting guest stars. Pinkadelica♣ 03:53, 14 December 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 Clear duck case. IP blocked. To propose deletion of the articles you should probably go to AFD, although honestly the ones I've looked at would likely have no trouble meeting WP:NACTOR. Jafeluv (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15 January 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Hathorn is back and adding guest stars to old TV shows again. This time it's The Donna Reed Show. Same MO - adding a ton of obscure actors to old television show articles in an effort to keep his pet articles non-orphaned (or whatever, I've really no idea what his end game is). Compare 107.208.120.11's and 107.208.120.11's wording to Hathorn's wording. Pinkadelica♣ 18:33, 15 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]
  • All anon edits during the last three months from the above three /16 ranges are Billy Hathorn, yes, so I've anon-blocked them for a bit. It seems that they are mostly trivial changes, so it should not be necessary to add them to the CCI.
    Amalthea 10:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
31 January 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP was already blocked back in December as one of many that Hathorn uses. Pinkadelica♣ 06:05, 31 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]
03 February 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Per WP:DUCK. More of the same from Billy Hathorn - adding random guest stars to articles/spamming titles of (mainly Western) television series to various actor articles. IP 173.7.230.238 using same wording as Hathorn. IP 173.7.242.122 doing much of the same. Pinkadelica♣ 00:16, 3 February 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]
  • Range is too big to block, especially since he keeps hopping, I suggest RFPP for any articles he repeatedly targets. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15 May 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The suspect appears to be Billy_Hathorn due to the same type of edits, amount of edits for: Louisiana, politics, obituaries and also using pictures uploaded by Billy_Hathorn himself etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Feazel_Chapel,_West_Monroe,_LA_IMG_0125.JPG Cheezwzl (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I did a quick scan of the edit histories. The IP's edits do seem consistent with past work by Billy Hathorn. However, I didn't run across any edits that inserted images uploaded by Billy; if you want people to see that evidence, it would be helpful to supply diffs of some of those edits. As for the registered account, I'm not convinced by the behavior; I think it's likely to be someone else. --Orlady (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: The IP matches up in style and location to previous socks. The registered editor's summaries match up previous socks Kycolonel4 and Valleymountain30. More diffs would help, archives are too stale to consider a CU, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this with no prejudice. It might be, but they stopped editing and we are just shy of evidence to connect the dots. Their next edits may provide more info, and this can be revisited if they come back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24 June 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Basically admitted it here Created by Billy Hathorn (talk). Self nominated at 00:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC). but the article was created by the sock Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

There are over half a dozen additional articles that were nominated for DYK on 24 June 2013 by Billy Hathorn as having been created by him, just like the George Peddy article cited above. These were actually created by a variety of other accounts as follows, and some were created by one and edited by another, and there's an IP that edited a number of these after creation (have only listed some examples), and in one place a sig with that IP number was changed by Billy to be his sig:

  • The changed sig from 70.124.114.59 to Billy Hathorn occurred in a DYK nomination template here: [5]

Listing additional suspected sockpuppet accounts involved from above instances:

—BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea, the IP 70/ is obviously Billy, he posted to your talk page using it. As for what will be done I would imagine the same as is done with all sockpuppets, they get blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was missing an "but is undoubtedly him" somewhere in my sentence.
Those socks are now blocked, but blocks here have always been ineffective in this particular case -- it turned out that all we have accomplished (in this particular case) is that a bazillion edits that should really have been looked at as part of the CCI are now untrackable for us.
Amalthea 17:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have the same issue with Nangparbat socks, he copyvios constantly. All I do is revert his edits and have done with it. The same needs to be done here, and articles created by socks known for copyvio infringements need to be deleted on sight. Why is that so difficult? What am I missing? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on my talk about this, since this page is likely going to be archived soonish it may make sense to continue there (or, if required, at WP:AN). Bottom line: inability to track, scope, and my hope for a productive and permanent solution is what drove me to try a more pragmatic approach. Amalthea 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Diff requirement for sock waived as it involves an article creation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a glance, the three listed named accounts are all certainly Billy (I noted Wftxjkfk13 a while ago). The IP is not in any of the (many!) ranges I've known (and that is of course the core of the problem here).
      Question is, what will you do with that knowledge?
      Amalthea 11:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The additional evidence had not been presented when I endorsed the case. Now that it has, I agree that this is a WP:DUCK. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Topic areas (articles about subjects of questionable notability largely from Louisiana and Texas); there is other strong behavioral evidence; please contact me via email for details, as I'd rather not publicly disclose my methodology. In addition to the named accounts above, frequently edits from dynamic Time Warner IPv6 IPs. Note Users on this list were all blocked by me within the last two months per WP:DUCK. I strongly suspect there are others, as it was by luck that I stumbled across the most recent one, User:Reading Associate 17 which has been active since mid-July. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:41, 10 August 2016 (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]

​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DoRD: I noticed you tagged quite a few of these accounts as CU blocked but the actual accounts have not been blocked. Normally I would but since these are CU they should probably be implemented by a CU. Specifically the following:
Did you want something different done with these accounts? Mkdwtalk 15:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged and blocked them all. Thanks again for your help, DoRD. OhNoitsJamie Talk
@Ohnoitsjamie: I had contemplated doing the same but I was under the impression these need to be recorded as CU blocks and not standard blocks. Mkdwtalk 16:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: I don't think I made any blocks or left any tags in this case. I usually just post the CU results and leave blocking and tagging up to another admin or clerk.
Now that that's all taken care of, I'll close it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User:24.160.132.224 blocked per WP:DUCK on behavioral evidence. There's only one edit so far from Ankirkhart, requesting info on why a page about a politician was deleted, a page which had been created by a (now blocked) sock. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:06, 19 August 2016 (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]

Comparing the account to the ones blocked by DoRD and based on the one edit, the account is Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing with no further action taken. Mike V • Talk 16:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edits such as this, adding a large amount of info on Ryan Gatti (Louisiana state senator) from IP who has never edited before lead me to suspect this account may be related to Billy Hathorn. The article was previously created by Hathorn, deleted ([6]), and recreated as a short stub my me. MB298 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Adding 2602:304:B23B:54B0:6CB5:ED04:C5D9:367C. Similar IP address, editing on Louisiana legislators again.

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 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Contribution history, such as editing Louisiana/Arkansas state legislators, especially this, falls exactly in line with Hathorn's previous sockpuppets. MB298 (talk) 01:42, 15 January 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: Merely improving an article, in a way that seems to be reasonable, is not grounds for WP:DUCK, which is the only thing we can use for IPs. Can you explain more specifically why you think the edit indicates that the IP is him? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts: Patterns exhibited by Hathorn and his puppets include adding large amounts of information to Louisiana politicians, the IP in question did this on Jeff Cox (judge) and Jean-Paul Coussan, the former was an article created by Billy Hathorn in 2014. Almost all the IP's edits were on articles created or substantially expanded by Billy Hathorn. The user in question has edited Michael Craig (Louisiana judge) (created by Hathorn in 2015), George Nattin Jr. (created by Hathorn), Donnie Copeland (which a previous sock of his expanded), Tensas High School (created by him), J. Kelly Nix (created by him), Red McCombs (expanded by him in 2015), Template:Louisiana cities and mayors of 100,000 population (which was edited by him in 2014), William Mackenzie Davidson (created by him), Tensas Parish, Louisiana (expanded in 2013), and Lanny Johnson (created by him and edited by a recent sockpuppet in December). Given the history of Hathorn's sockpuppets this appears to be him. MB298 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a reasonable probability it's him, but without a clear telltale sign in the content of the edits, I don't think there's enough evidence to justify a block on behavioral grounds alone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP isn't active anymore, closing. GABgab 00:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • GAB, User:King of Hearts, I'm blocking the IP in light of recent edits (the usual addition of BLP trivia and other irrelevant info which is at best of purely local interest). I have also blocked 64.134.58.105, whose edits I saw on Recent changes and which led me down this rabbit hole. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • GAB, I don't know if you need to reopen this, but I am blocking Alex Hortman (talk · contribs) as a sock, based on behavioral evidence: same kinds of articles, same kind of content, same problems (the trivia...!), and an enormous overlap--and I know geographical interest and Hathorn's high edit count are mitigating factors, but Hortman's edit count is low, and 23 "overlaps" including on some obscure BLPs is crazy high. (Note also the last names--practically anagrams.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

03 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The evidence I am about to present shows clearly that these three ip addresses, in order to most recent to least recent, are socks of Billy Hathorn. First, the most current IP, 67.45.96.9, has edited 46 articles Billy Hathorn has also edited, largely about the same topics, and has used the same edit summaries (such as saying they have added something). 64.239.220.166, the second most recently used (it's also been used in the past), has edited a stunning 90 articles Billy Hathorn has also edited, as well as one article a sock of his (Hot Furnace) has also edited. 198.205.24.205, the third used IP address, has edited 45 articles Billy Hathorn has also edited -- in just 103 edits. They also display the same interest in minor Louisiana politicians. 92.30.178.11 (talk) 11:43, 3 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]

  •  Additional information needed - 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No diffs provided, and the IPs look stale now. Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record: there is no doubt in my mind that Billy is all three. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Only editing paid articles, includes press in name. Even if not directly a sockpuppet violated WP:PAIDEDITING Carl Fredrik talk 14:57, 21 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]

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Suspect is very  Stale. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account hasn't edited in almost five years, so there really isn't much value in spending time investigating it. If they resume editing, you may report them again. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New user registered a few months ago has recreated several articles that were originally created by a blocked and confirmed sock from a few years back, User:E._R._Softwood. User:P_Moyne has already been blocked per WP:DUCK, but it would be helpful to check for recently created sleepers. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • The articles were red links in a list. Did they have the same content as the deleted articles? Peter James (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

02 October 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


User:Billy Hathorn was banned indefinitely in 2015 for persistent copyright violations. Since that time, there have been sockpuppetry issues. He has a particular scope of interest--local level politicians, especially in Texas and Louisiana. His editing style is to add lots of probably non-notable biographical details about these individuals. User:DubstepDalton was created in November 2017 and immediately got to work (very precociously) on creating articles like John H. Bailey. DubstepDalton was blocked by Dianaa for copyright violations on March 7, 2018. On March 12, 2018, User:DailyDip was created and began creating articles like William F. Evans. Behaviorally, I have a great degree of certainly both of these newer accounts are BillyHathorn. I'd recommend a checkuser to see if other accounts are active as well. Marquardtika (talk) 19:12, 2 October 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]

The case is  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am convinced that DubstepDalton and DailyDip are the same person (see the talk page edits and if you don’t see it, ask me on my talk) so I’ve blocked the account. I’m not convinced that this is the right master though, and I think we might need a new case. There are several differences between these two accounts and the old socks. GeneralizationsAreBad, would you mind giving a second opinion on the paperwork and classification stuff here? TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: @TonyBallioni: I see at least some similarities (to the master) in terms of pages targeted, but I'll do a deeper dive. GABgab 01:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every account is blocked and this case hasn't been touched in a month, so it seems like there's not much else to do here. Closing. --Deskana (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23 April 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

Potential policy violations in using multiple accounts. Possibly using the Onlinenow account to commit copyright violatiosn while keeping the TexasHistory account clean. See this version of the Onlinenow talk page showing a large string of copyright violations. Providing the appearance of more support for contesting a speedy deletion. See this version of Talk:Juan Nepomuceno Flores. The unsigned contested deletions are from Onlinenow and the last is by TExasHistory. When notified of ANI, it appears they have tried to hide the use of the TexasHistory account. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, that's about it. Looks like actually both accounts have been inactive for over a decade. OnlineNow returned 31 March 2021 and TexasHistory returned 12 April 2021. They had similar user pages even back in 2007, so probably no compromised accounts. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Largely duplicate comment --Blablubbs|talk 08:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was inactive for so long because my son was born with cystic fibrosis and he just passed away a little over a year ago at age 8. I'm sure you can find something more constructive to do than this apparent witch hunt against me when I have done nothing wrong. I added that draft to my list because I was going to try to help correct problems with it since I live near that location, I added the draft to my list so I could click on it and quickly get there but when I saw you had started some big investigation on it I decided it was not worth the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was inactive for so long because my son was born with cystic fibrosis and he just passed away a little over a year ago at age 8. I'm sure you can find something more constructive to do than this apparent witch hunt against me when I have done nothing wrong. I added that draft to my list because I was going to try to help correct problems with it since I live near that location, I added the draft to my list so I could click on it and quickly get there but when I saw you had started some big investigation on it I decided it was not worth the trouble. and why is me "keeping my account clean" a violation maybe those initiating this should be looked at for committing harassment. User:Texas History — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory (talk • contribs) 08:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]


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

  • CU confirmed. No other accounts visible. This report made after an ANI thread; Alexis Jazz, please use the section above to clearly and concisely indicate what the violations are, if any, so an admin can determine whether there was illegitimate use of two accounts, and how disruptive it was, and what the result should be. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TexasHistory: Thank you for responding here. I'm very sorry to hear about your loss. Could you clarify what your connection to the Onlinenow (talk · contribs) account is? Best, Blablubbs|talk 08:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TexasHistory, Onlinenow's son (the account was "Nowonline" at the time) also died of cystic fibrosis at age 8, as was mentioned back in April of 2007, on 18:13, an hour and a half before you created your account. If you are correct in what you just wrote, the question still remains on how this is relevant to the fact that you created this account in 2007 after you already had started one in 2005 and were actively editing with it. Strange. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I think we can safely move/merge this to Billy Hathorn's SPI. The two are confirmed to each other and the behavioral evidence is overwhelming. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it looks like Onlinenow (created 2005-12-13) is the oldest account (Hathorn was created 2006-3-2), so the merge might need to be the other way around. Blablubbs|talk 20:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm that may be correct, but I think everyone here knows Billy Hathorn and no one's ever heard of this cat. There will be a redirect, right? Oh, is there a talk page/email list for SPI people? I'd love for some of the old timers to have a look at this, some of the people who were on the old SPI. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, there would be an archive notice pointing to the new case name – but then again, given that the master is prolific enough, we could probably just ignore the account ages and merge this into Hathorn anyway. I've set the case status to clerk and will leave that call to someone with a histmerge button. We don't have a mailing list or a very active talk page (WT:SPI and WT:SPI/C are the only ones that come to mind) – I think a mass-ping might be your best option. Blablubbs|talk 21:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say something about how I don't personally think this is a Hathorn sock/Hathorn's first account (as someone who has looked through thousands and thousands of edits for the associated CCI), but then I realized that its very likely and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 21:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Moneytrees, my Uncle seems to backtrack a little bit also. I'll confirm that indeed I found no CU evidence that they are connected to Hathorn (not that I would have expected any, given how stale those accounts are), and that it doesn't really matter to me. I'm happy with letting this stand as it is. Then again, "And give my regards to Billy Hathorn"? Drmies (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to have discovered more Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn. The modus operandi is copyright violations; small towns, in Texas and otherwise; and BLP trivia. You now should perhaps also look at:
  • Uncle G (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it, Uncle G; I've already been going through that history, and posted on a Help page to see if Hathorn had also mentioned a son. Onlinenow has a page full of copyvio warnings, their mannerisms are the same, as are other technical aspects of their editing. I was waiting for them to come back here and comment on the unusual coincidence of the cystic fibrosis comment, but I don't think they'll be back here again. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see any technical evidence at all for Dannoncool. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked for the text myself and not found it. But I've found even more behavioural evidence for you in the meantime. Special:Diff/131365008 is a copyright violation by TexasHistory from https://web.archive.org/web/20050114081236/http://www.alsbury.co.uk/family/alsb_tex.htm on a Texas subject. And Special:Diff/131336468 is another Texas subject's biography copied from that same page.

      And Special:Diff/89308732 is Onlinenow/Nowonline closely paraphrasing that same page.

      Uncle G (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been through the Hathorn sockpuppets looking for on-wiki connection. It took a while. I can make an easy behavioural case, that doesn't even need checkuser, for connecting Onlinenow and TexasHistory and some logged-out edits. They filched content from the same WWW source. I cannot make a solid case linking it to Billy Hathorn, and I actually think, for reasons buried in deleted edits that I found, that this is best not associated with Billy Hathorn unless we have checkuser evidence, which you say you have not, or firm on-wiki evidence. It brings something else in that we shouldn't bring in, and that's as far as I'm going to say anything about it. DannonCool needs turfing out anyway, sockpuppet or no, for sneaky copyright violations. As does this one person, even if it weren't sockpuppetry. Let's just leave it standalone and block. Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Onlinenow/Archive&oldid=1087652970"