From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thekohser

Thekohser ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
17 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Unknown but most likely to exist, see evidence below.


Evidence submitted by Cyclopia

This offsite comment (I have also a backup URL cached copy link, but I've seen backupurl is spamblocked, so I'm unsure if I can post it anyway) by well known indef blocked user Thekohser ( talk · contribs) seems to imply that he has several block evading sock accounts, some of them being confirmed editors: [...] which accounts will be allowed to approve a given "pending change"? I read about "senior editors", but there is no such thing, is there? Are we talking about admins, or merely confirmed (4 days, 10 edits) accounts? I have some confirmed accounts, so this could be fun.. A checkuser investigation is therefore worth in my opinion -it seems from the thread that the user desires to mess with the introduction of the Pending Changes feature.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Cyclopia talk 02:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk declined – I hate to say this, but there is absolutely nothing here to go off of – no possible suspected socks, no IPs, no nothing; and Thekohser is long stale, which means CU cannot go back that far and do any checking. We're going to need more information, otherwise CU cannot do anything since   CheckUser is not magic pixie dust (and what would be checked, anyways?) – MuZemike 02:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: Closed per MuZemike. Elockid ( Talk) 18:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
13 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kindzmarauli

Pretty clear sock who is engaging in edit warring on Don Murphy [1], and previous edits were to the puppetmasters own userpage [2], [3], [4], [5]. Kindzmarauli ( talk) 17:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I have indefinitely blocked the account. It is clear that at one point this account was used by Thekohser ( talk · contribs). But as for who is controlling it now, the results are inconclusive. I have a few ideas, but it could be one of a few known sockmasters. KnightLago ( talk) 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
07 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Themfromspace

User:Grasptheweb just submitted the article SEO 2.0 after an account that identifies as thekohser won a bid to create the same one on freelancer.com. See bid here. This looks pretty obvious. Them From Space 00:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Seems pretty obvious to me too. I'm sorely tempted to salt the article, actually. - Vianello ( Talk) 03:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

It's thekohser, not thekosher fyi. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 03:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
That it is. That it indeed is. Thanks for catching that. - Vianello ( Talk) 03:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
No problem. Seems obvious to me as well, but we might as well wait for the CU to finish. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 03:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
I actually thought my initial PP hadn't gone through, and I had changed my mind to the same conclusion you've reached here after that, but evidently it did after all. I can undo it easily enough if CU comes back negative. - Vianello ( Talk) 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
If you're really certain about the connection, and it seems blatantly obvious to you, you need not wait. That's your call. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
I can confirm that this article was created by the banned puppetmaster in question. I copied and pasted the pre-deletion content into my sandbox last night hoping to rescue it and rewrite it later using the sources he had provided in the article. The content itself seemed ok to me, quite apart from the fact it was created by a banned user. Today, I have received an accusatory e-mail full of barely supressed outrage via the Wikipedia e-mail feature from the primary account Thekohser ( talk · contribs) regarding my attempt to rescue the article and improve it. I thought I was being helpful by rescuing his article, but since he's sending me bitchy e-mails I will just speedy my sandbox and he can forget about getting paid by his client. Kindzmarauli ( talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Additionally, why is his main account not tagged as an abusive puppetmaster? Kindzmarauli ( talk) 21:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Likely, and if not Thekohser ( talk · contribs) then someone editing on his behalf. Also, Master Service Agreement ( talk · contribs) is  Confirmed. KnightLago ( talk) 23:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

19 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Based on a comment by Kohs on Wikipedia Review about using Freelancer.com, I decided to check around on there to find his account and see if I could narrow down some accounts of his here based on his clients. For the most part, he does a good job of only going after clients that don't list what article they want fixed. However, there was one in his In Progress list, the only one there, that listed the article. Here is a link to that listing. As you can see, the article being discussed is Aburizal Bakrie. Looking at the history of that article since November, there are only a few options.

The accounts Thamrin2, Antasari, and A. Irianto all exclusively edited Bakrie's article. It is possible that A. Irianto is actually the client, as they only added an updated image of Bakrie, but they should probably still be checked. Thamrin2 and Antasari are clearly the same user, based on the summaries (both using "added" in the same manner and in a shortish time frame). The IP address also made a similar type of edit to the article (though they have edited one other article as well). Dunia Penulis is a much more unlikely sock, as they have edited a number of other articles (though only since late November, so this might be a cover) and also made a talk page comment for the article, but because of the time frame and the removal of information in the article by them, I think they should also be checked. They might be a more elaborate account.

I'm hoping that a Checkuser might be able to detect some of his, stated, dozens of other accounts. But it's probably also likely that he's running a different proxy for each, so we might not be able to find anything.

And it might also be that none of these accounts are him, since his Freelancer does say that this article is still "In Progress". In that case, we just need to keep a close eye on the article and the edits made to it. Silver seren C 04:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - It's been awhile since we've had this case, and everyone connected to the master is stale. Nevertheless there do seem to be similarities in these accounts (for reasons I'll not go into here per WP:BEANS) so I think it's worth a look. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Two accounts were editing behind proxies (Thamrin2 and Antasari). I've blocked the proxies, so if they resume editing again, let me know. The other two accounts are  Unlikely to be related to each other. TN X Man 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Darn. I guess that makes it likely that those two were Kohser then, huh? Silver seren C 17:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: It's suspicious, but not in itself damning. Closing for now, but relist if any of these accounts become active. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply
16 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Thekohser admitted that the account was his here and linking to this hoax addition to prove it. Now, while he may be lying, there's no reason not to check. Admittedly, the account hasn't been active since October 2011, but i'm hoping that, this time, we might catch some other accounts of his. Again, extremely unlikely, but we might as well try, especially since it's evident from his comments over the years and how these keep popping up that he likely has dozens of sleeper accounts. Silver seren C 20:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Stale; Kohs knows very well how checkuser works and rarely discloses his puerile vandalism before it becomes worthless. FWIW, the account is almost certainly his, but we'll not get information from it. —  Coren  (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • We have, ultimately, no way of knowing whether what Kohs said about the account/edits was anywhere close to the truth. I'm pretty sure anyone can trivially find any little-used account that is several months old, find an edit of theirs that was reverted some time later, and then claim the account was theirs and part of the Master Plan all along. Or he could have said some version of the truth. (My mom used to say something along the lines of "such a liar you can't even believe the opposite of what they say anymore").

    tl;dr: I don't think it matters either way. We can't prove it's his and it's been inactive; personally, I wouldn't even bother unless it wakes up someday. —  Coren  (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Closing as stale with no action taken. Per Coren, if the account becomes actively disruptive, please file another report. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
27 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

I left a comment with the previous admin that had dealt with a Kohser SPI, but haven't heard a response from them in some time. Therefore, I am opening this new request now.

In the previous request, it was noted that the proxy User:Thamrin2 had been working behind was blocked and that should have kept him out. However, as can be seen from the history of the article Aburizal Bakrie, he has been editing since then. I have significant reason to believe that this is Thekohser, possibly along with some of the other IPs that have edited the article. Unfortunately, the Wikipediocracy thread where Thekohser more explicitly stated his involvement in the article has been deleted, though I do have screenshots of his comment. And the Freelancer listing where he was paid to edit the article is really more than enough by itself.

Since Thamrin2 has been editing even as recently as December 31, outside of the blocked proxy he was behind before, I request that this be looked into. If he's behind yet another proxy...even more direct evidence that he is Thekohser. I haven't marked this for Checkuser though because I doubt it would do anything. Thekohser is very good at using a bunch of different proxies for his accounts, making it impossible to link them directly.

I have also added 202.128.203.93 to this because of their recent editing and comments on the talk page. However, based on their wording, I don't believe they are Thekohser (though it's possible), but instead they may be the person who made the paid listing in the first place to have the article white-washed. I'm not exactly sure what should be done with them, but they're listed here anyways for your perusal. Silver seren C 23:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Looking at Thamrin2's history since then, i'm intrigued. Has this school class thing ever been substantiated? Because there's too many coincidences here for me to believe that he's unrelated to Thekohser. Both his account and Antasari's first edits were to the article, with good edits and perfectly formatted edit summaries. That alone is suspicious. Not to mention that this edit by Antasari (his second edit ever) was followed two days later by the next edit to the article, which was this by Thamrin2. Compare the edit summaries. And that was Thamrin2's first edit ever. You see my concern now? Silver seren C 23:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. The IP being complained about appears to be in Singapore, hardly surprising for someone interested in Indonesian politics. Kohs is based in the eastern United States. This SPI, and more particularly Seren's comment on the Bakrie talk page ("A banned user named Thekohser was paid to remove all criticism of the subject from the article"), appear to be attempts to smear Kohs based on no evidence at all by Seren. The article is very poor, but that's Wikipedia's failure. There are thousands of articles as poor or poorer. Dan Murphy ( talk) 11:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Smearing him how? A banned user, Thekohser, accepted a paid job to edit this article. The fact that he is a banned user alone is reason to run this SPI, regardless of whether there is whitewashing or not. Silver seren C 12:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I did not look at the behavoir, but I blocked the account for attempting to further evade an SPI investigation by hiding from CU, and I blocked the proxy he is working behind for 3 years, matching the escalating blocks ideal. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
15 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


At Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Problem_logging_in_as_User:Thekohser Gregory Kohs has used his IP to edit. He has edited here on this project (and all throughout JW's talk page using an IP. If other IPs are needed, let me know so that CU can be done on those too. Russavia ( talk) 19:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • This seems like an open-and-shut case, frankly, in the light of that Commons post. Prioryman ( talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note:I've blocked the one based on the Commons edits, although that is pretty weak since it wasn't here. I'm declining blocking the second IP as they have never edited here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply
04 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

I thought I would note here: The material that relates to user:thekohser is further down. This was originally opened as a separate investigation, because the connection was not known at first. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 21:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply


User:2001:558:1400:10:d4bf:9258:ee2f:4f9a makes a notification of Bright-line rule infringements on January 2: [6]. This IP is banned on January 3 [7]. User:I'm not that crazy gives a similar Bright-line rule infringement notification on January 4: [8].

IPs have been giving previous similar notifications recently, e.g.: [9] [10] [11]

On November 29 User:2001:558:1400:10:ac79:7a9:faf6:9668 writes that " WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTE" are sufficient for dealing with COI [12]. On December 2 User:I'm not that crazy writes that "WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTE" are sufficient for dealing with COI. [13]

Users consistently use "Bright Line Rule" as three separate words with each first letter capitalized, despite this being unusual (cf. common styles at: [14]):

[15] [16]

[17]

[18] [19]

[20]

There's some interesting relationship with User:Orangemike. The two different IPs both give sarcastic alerts to OrangeMike about deleting articles. Perhaps this user under a different account had an article deleted by Orangemike? Perhaps CheckUser could reveal this:

[21] [22]

CheckUser to confirm and discover any other accounts. Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 21:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply

EDIT:

Same behaviour including style from IP 173.161.202.37: [23]

This IP, 173.161.202.37, is registered to Comcast Business [24]. User:I'm not that crazy also has an interest in Comcast Business: [25] and [26]. Gregory Kohs is a director at Comcast Business, who I believe has a history here at Wikipedia. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 03:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

EDIT:

The edit mentioned above by 173.161.202.37 on November 24 [27] was copied almost verbatim in an article by Gregory Kohs in the examiner on November 25: www.examiner.com/article/wikimedia-law-firm-fiddles-wikipedia-and-jimmy-wales-hides (blacklisted link). Perhaps this case should be merged with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyWikiBiz? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 05:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

EDIT:

User:I'm not that crazy comes out of nowhere and cites a 5-year old edit by User:Thekohser in some arcane dispute: [28] -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 19:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

EDIT:

IPs 2001:558:1400:10:6CB5:19A4:CF82:8444 and 2001:558:1400:10:3537:41B9:58A1:6138 show the same behaviour and style: [29] [30]

2001:558:1400:10:3537:41B9:58A1:6138 asks about Alfresco revdel on September 24 [31] and Gregory Kohs writes an article about this in the Examiner on November 4: www.examiner.com/article/jimmy-wales-keynotes-alfresco-summit (blacklisted link).

IP 2001:558:1400:10:6CB5:19A4:CF82:8444 has some revdel additions which hopefully someone can compare with the article www.examiner.com/article/jimmy-wales-keynotes-alfresco-summit (for example it might show that the article contains information which was only also presented in the revdel'd edits). -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 19:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

EDIT:

User:I'm not that crazy responds in a thread started by 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 with a link to and high level of familiarity with a two year post by Gregory Kohs: [32]. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 22:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

EDIT:

IP 2001:558:1400:10:78bc:4c64:2414:814f claims to have an email from Betsy Lordan of the FTC discussing rules concerning disclosure: [33]. 2 years ago Gregory Kohs claims to have had just such a discussion with Betsy Lordan: [34] -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 20:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

EDIT:

IP 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE suggests welcoming MyWikiBiz back to Wikipedia: [35] -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 21:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

On January 6 Gregory Kohs asks about Sarah Stierch and MyWikiBiz: [36]. On January 7 IP 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE asks about Sarah Stierch and MyWikiBiz: [37]. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 21:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

For the article List of Wikipedia controversies, IP 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE cites a story by Gregory Kohs on the Examiner: [38] www.examiner.com/article/jimmy-wales-breaks-wikipedia-rules-hunt-for-snowden (blacklisted link) -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 22:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply

IP 2001:558:1400:10:e1c7:8438:5e48:3232 makes a comment November 8 [39] which Gregory links to on the same day: [40] -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 06:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

On January 9 Gregory Kohs objects to editing with regards to an IBT story by Thomas Halleck [41]. On January 10 User:I'm not that crazy objects to the same thing [42].

On January 8 User:I'm not that crazy argues that Gregory Kohs is a good source to use for an article [43], including showing intimate knowledge of when and where Kohs has been cited.

On January 10 Gregory Kohs objects to how clients of Comcast Business are listed on the Wikipedia article [44]. The same day, User:I'm not that crazy makes the same objection [45].-- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 05:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply

These 2001 IPs are very similar to the ones in the archive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#15 May 2013. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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

  • Comment. Probably this report should have been made to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser or to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyWikiBiz. I agree with Atethnekos that this is an obvious sockpuppet or "meatpuppet" of that banned user, and/or that this person and the various IPs listed above are the same person. All are shrill and tendentious defenders of paid editors, and as Atethnekos has pointed out, User:I'mnotthatcrazy acts in lockstep with the acknowledged person behind the banned mywikibiz and thekohser accounts. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • no Declined - The Privacy policy prevents us from publicly linking named accounts to IP addresses. That being said, please note that all the IPv6 addresses listed (2001:558:1400:10::/64) likely belong to one Comcast subscriber. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 21:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I've moved this section from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I'm not that crazy and marked the status as "Open". Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Per the above behavioral evidence, I've blocked the account indef and the IPv6 range for three months. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
05 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Appears to be admitting [ [46]] to be being a sock and creating additional socks. can we cu and sleeper sweep Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 19:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

User:DeltaQuad, we've updated with the master and [ [47]] such as this demonstrate a familiarity with the SPI process and format. Per one other confirmed sock has a obsession with rules and terms as exhibited here [ [48]] and see his userpage [ [49]] Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Additional information needed - Mr. 2001 is not a valid user.  No sleepers immediately visible -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - All CheckUser data on previous socks of the Thekohser is  Stale, and can not be accessed. I did run the check on Spotting ToU as noted above, but I don't see what else CU can do here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply


14 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Same reasons as above, brand new account same editing habits with an intimate familiarirty with Jimbos page, taunts User:Smallbones [ [50]] and similarly [ [51]] encourages Tarc to edit war on their behalf. Same terms of use nonsense as the last sock. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I object to my questions about Terms of Use being described as "nonsense". Highly-paid Wikimedia Foundation attorneys spend many days devoted to establishing the new Terms of Use amendment regarding paid editing disclosure, but the WP:REWARD Board remains a valid place for paid editing to be requested, and if innocent editors who seek payment are going to be unilaterally punished in this way by anti-paid-editing zealots, then we really have a breach of the policies of Wikipedia and potential tortious interference problems. - The Rewarder ( talk) 20:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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

Could you please add User:The Receiver 0814 to the investigation, since User:Smallbones has deleted their as work of a "banned" user, also? I make no claim, positive or negative, of whether I am a sockpuppet of Thekohser; but I am 100% certain that The Receiver 0814 and I are not the same person, and that other than the one Reward Board incentive, The Receiver 0814 has never been in my employ before. - The Rewarder ( talk) 20:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I've blocked both The Rewarder and The Receiver 0814 as blatant troll accounts. They're obviously a returned user playing games, whether Thekosher or not, and giving them this spotlight is only feeding their dramamongering. I've blocked them, now I intend to ignore them by closing this report. If any other CU would like to dig deeper then please feel free to reopen.-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • An IP asked on my user talk to look at The Receiver 0814 - I ran a checkuser and the accounts are  Likely to be Thekohser. PhilKnight ( talk) 08:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
01 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Userpage combined with username seems to be a dead giveaway. Everymorning talk 02:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: @ Courcelles: I see you blocked the account, but since I don't know a lot about this case, I'm calling you to tell if this is the sock of Thekohser. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • With account blocked and confirmed, I'm closing this case. Mike V • Talk 20:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
09 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK just arrived in the pond; will be more I'm sure. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Account just blocked for socking, but maybe we should leave this open in case there are others. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: This SPI was erroneously opened under the name of the sockpuppet, instead of sockmaster. An admin is needed to move this (and merge into) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

11 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


per contributions to User talk:Jimbo Wales. WP:DUCK Coretheapple ( talk) 13:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention Vanjagenije (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I had already indeffed this account as a troll before seeing this SPI. I'd rather leave it that way without a tag on the account's userpage per WP:DENY (see Ponyo's comments in the archive). Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

31 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Made a request at [53] to insert an image uploaded to Commons by Thekohser, who is banned on the English Wikipedia. The IP address geolocates to Pennsylvania, where Kohs is from. Rcsprinter123 (announce) 10:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

18 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Greg Kohs is shown making an edit 5:30 into this video. The reference shown on screen matches the reference in this edit which was also reverted "within an hour" and roughly matches the timeframe in which this video was likely produced. 90.214.123.101 ( talk) 09:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The alleged puppet hasn't edited in six months. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 12:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive&oldid=1142534559"