Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

Obvious ban evasion of and  —  Czello  14:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Hilarious. I am BorkNein. I am not BKH, and the only reason people think I am, is because advanced user rights holders say I am. And they wouldn't lie, right? Well, on a project where [redacted 1] gets to do what he did to me as an Administrator, a straight up INVOLVED block, then cover his tracks after the fact (although at least this time he didn't use his advanced rights to do so), and nobody bats an eyelid, I would say there is no limit to the capacity for corruption here. I am clearly seen as dangerous to Wikipedia, with my annoying questions about your inability to source articles on your sworn enemies properly, so you better believe people are going to do whatever they think will protect Wikipedia. After all, it's not like there is a Wikipedia regulator, is there? You are self-regulating. BorkNein2 (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Doubly hilarious. [redacted 2] is already reverting me because I am a "blocked sock". Why did you even bother to open this investigation then? Just use the truth as your reason for these reverts - what I am saying, is dangerous to Wikipedia, you can't afford to have anyone seeing it, because it utterly destroys your credibility. BorkNein2 (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Uncomfortable truths for Wikipedia: You will never stop me socking to register these as outstanding complaints that need to be resolved with honesty and transparency, because the implied contract of me caring about your rules because you do, was broken by Chapman. And I'm being generous at that, given most of you have treated me like I had just fallen off the back of a turnip truck from the very first moment I arrived. That means you, [redacted 2]. Own your mistake. BorkNein2 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail claim is not adequately sourced
 * [redacted 3] is a habitual liar
 * [redacted 3] is an edit warrior
 * Wikipedia Administrators happily protect [redacted 3], regardless of the facts
 * Specifically, [redacted 1] performed an INVOLVED block and covered it up, because he actually thinks [redacted 3] is Administrator material!


 * Just so you're aware of you saying you'll never be stopped socking -- I hope you know that you can be IP range blocked, preventing you creating new accounts, right? Meanwhile, I think it's best I ping [redacted 3] given you're leveling personal attacks at him. —  Czello  14:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Quack quack. - Alexis Jazz 15:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you just give him his talk page access back after User:El C revoked it? - Alexis Jazz 15:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , whoops, I hadn't seen that he had upgraded that block. Sorry . – bradv  🍁  15:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, Bradv. It's all good. El_C 15:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
is confirmed to and. – bradv  🍁  15:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Renamed case to oldest account., I'll pull TPA again for the master and all socks. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC) GeneralNotability (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

Obvious, not even hiding it by putting an extra digit on the end and resuming debates from when he was banned. He has even stated he'd keep recreating socks —  Czello  09:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If you put my talk page on your watchlist, that's usually where he goes first. Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * can this be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton? - Alexis Jazz 09:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, and please merge. Also, . -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Cases moved. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably best to here per WP:DENY. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Noting for the record this is another sock I've just found, No edits but it's obviously a sleeper, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 10:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to pre-emptively ban BorkNein7, BorkNein8, BorkNein9, etc? —  Czello  11:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * To add onto this, as BorkNein is continually creating new socks (check the edit history of this page -- you'd think he had better things to do on a Sunday), can we block his ability to create new accounts? —  Czello  12:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * See above. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

For the paper trail, FYI. —— Serial  14:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)  ——  Serial  14:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * – bradv  🍁  14:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This user has just shown up today to push a similar viewpoint about the Daily Mail, the target of previous socks. The verbose writing style looks similar to me. So far, all their contributions are related to the DM. See in particular  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it! —  Czello  21:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Self-endorsing - found their way to the Daily Mail talkpage and jumped right into that discussion with similar POV to BKH, in my opinion that's enough to justify a CU. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. –  bradv  🍁  01:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Barrymore's revenge has made similar claims of "fraudulent misrepresentation" against the Wikipedia community with regard to the Daily Mail RfCs in Special:Diff/970169877/970189881, the account's only two edits. —  Newslinger  talk   22:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

After examining the writing style of the following users, which involves long walls of text that intersperse victim playing and sealioning with personal attacks, I suspect that the following accounts are also operated by the same individual as the Brian K Horton account: Compare to Brian K Horton's. The above accounts are stale, and would need a behavioral review if this matter is worth pursuing. —  Newslinger  talk   22:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * – see the entirety of Special:Permalink/442244732
 * – see the entirety of Special:Permalink/684922331
 * Thank you, Callanecc. All of these accounts are connected to an extensive off-wiki harassment campaign spanning many years. I can provide evidence via email, although a couple of search engine queries would go a long way. —  Newslinger  talk   17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In light of your comment here, it looks like spihelper.js prematurely tagged and . Do you mind taking a second look? —  Newslinger   talk   23:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Question: Without revealing checkuser info, is there any chance that this is all coming from DM headquarters? If a private response is appropriate, here is my email link: --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not have thought so, bearing in mind that the extreme paranoia and inability to discuss logically demonstrated by BKH in his dealings with me could only show them up in a very poor light. Deb (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Those accounts are blocked and tagged. I'm not sure that we're going to get enough behavioural evidence to definitively link the accounts given the time that has elapsed but I'll leave this case open so someone else can take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those accounts are blocked and tagged. I'm not sure that we're going to get enough behavioural evidence to definitively link the accounts given the time that has elapsed but I'll leave this case open so someone else can take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those accounts are blocked and tagged. I'm not sure that we're going to get enough behavioural evidence to definitively link the accounts given the time that has elapsed but I'll leave this case open so someone else can take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those accounts are blocked and tagged. I'm not sure that we're going to get enough behavioural evidence to definitively link the accounts given the time that has elapsed but I'll leave this case open so someone else can take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those accounts are blocked and tagged. I'm not sure that we're going to get enough behavioural evidence to definitively link the accounts given the time that has elapsed but I'll leave this case open so someone else can take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those accounts are blocked and tagged. I'm not sure that we're going to get enough behavioural evidence to definitively link the accounts given the time that has elapsed but I'll leave this case open so someone else can take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those accounts are blocked and tagged. I'm not sure that we're going to get enough behavioural evidence to definitively link the accounts given the time that has elapsed but I'll leave this case open so someone else can take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see a ton of value in figuring out whether Brian K Horton is also Mighty Morphin Army Ranger or MickMacNee since both are very very stale. Closing without further action. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Usual Daily Mailania, see their edits to User talk:Barkeep49. (And apologies to you, for refactoring your page—when I saw the "Mid September flight" section heading on my watchlist, I thought it was at WT:RFA)  ——  Serial  19:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CU'd them as I was coming here, they've been (though I'm starting to wonder if it's time to start WP:DENYing soon). GeneralNotability (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC) GeneralNotability (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same focus on the Daily Mail as the last socks, uses similar language as previous socks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
If a CU is run on this, please -- without revealing too much -- comment on whether it is geographically plausible that this could be a Daily Mail employee editing Wikipedia as part of his job. Can we rule out the possibility that the account is posting from 2 Derry St in London? Is the IP in any way related to those listed here?

Needless to say, we can only say whether paid editing is plausible or implausible. There are a lot of DM fans in London, so posting from there isn't really evidence of anything. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Related: Daily Mail and General Trust. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It might perhaps be helpful to know that the current UK government advice regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is for people to work from home where possible. Obviously I won't be confirming or denying any personal details like where I work or where my office is, and I would frankly be extremely surprised if not slightly alarmed if anyone here is minded to act on such a request, and that includes the passing of information through channels they might consider private, up to and including any medium chosen to avoid or evade their obligations regarding the non-disclosure agreements that exist between the Wikimedia Foundation and third parties. Jack B Williamson (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, before someone here makes use of the incredibly powerful CheckUser tool, which, as hinted at above by Mr Macon, can have seriously harmful real world consequences for people and organizations, one has to have evidence of actual disruptive intent or acts, which I don't believe I am guilty of. Simply being familiar with a Wikipedia controversy, for example, does not pass the threshold, as reflected in the most recent clarification from the Arbitration Committee, the local volunteers tasked with ensuring the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy is followed. I have no objection to being blocked on the basis that anyone who questions the quality of the Wikipedia article about the Daily Mail on these general themes must always be the same person or an agent of theirs, but obviously, I'm not going to confirm or deny whether that is the case as a condition of being allowed to participate, not when the aforementioned policy reserves my right to keeping such details of my private life, private. Jack B Williamson (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Obvious undisclosed paid editor is obvious. See Paid-contribution disclosure. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Odd for a brand new account to talk about the Arbitration Committee and the WMF Privacy Policy. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You're barking up the wrong tree I am afraid old bean. No disclosure necessary, I assure you. If you really think it's obvious though, give us all a laugh here at [name of office redacted for privacy reasons] and avail yourself of the instructions in the section titled "Reporting undisclosed paid editors". Jack B Williamson (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Blocked per WP:DUCK. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - same modus operandi as past socks. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (cu results) -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As an admin familiar with this situation I approve the block. For those who don't know, whoever used the Brian K Horton account is most likely User:MickMacNee, aka Crowsnest, Death to Wikipedia, and JackTheJiller. As says, All of these accounts are connected to an extensive off-wiki harassment campaign spanning many years. I can provide evidence via email, although a couple of search engine queries would go a long way. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI!  21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account, same focus on the Daily Mail and same language as previous socks Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I request that the CU be done against the previous suspected sock,, rather than Brian K Horton?. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I am not a sock-puppet. This is my first Wikipedia account. I teach a class on critical thinking, and we are currently studying the implications of the Wikipedia ruling that the Daily Mail cannot be trusted, as it pertains to the less obvious means by which Mail generated information could find its way into Wikipedia. I am not sure what my language has to do with this accusation, but I am happy to answer any questions about myself. Marcus Joiner (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * -- first edit 17:51, 3 October 2020
 * -- first edit 17:29, 16 June 2020
 * -- first edit 11:45, 31 October 2007

If these appear to be the same, please merge to the oldest. If they appear to not be the same, please remove the "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of MickMacNee" notice from User:Brian K Horton. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What's the delay here? Why has an investigation been opened, if people are apparently just free to convict me before it even concludes? The f is up with this bs? Marcus Joiner (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * JackTheJiller/MickMackNee, as QuranicVerse told you on Reddit 5 days ago, your acting attempts are wooden and obvious, HobartFrisbee's description of your "obsessive walls of screech" is accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The only obsession here appears to be yours. I don't know who you are talking about, but you must be a if you are seeing any "obsessive walls of screech" in my posts. Maybe stay off Reddit, if that's where you spend your down time? Not too attached to reality over there. Marcus Joiner (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that you make posts on reddit complaining about your obvious socks getting banned then writing massive walls of text when other contributors call you out, top kek right there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear then, you're saying I write walls of text? My longest post here having been what, fifteen lines? I'll grant that they're longer than yours, but I honestly think that's because you're a . Was that the language issue you refer to? That I make sense? That I can string points together, use the English language correctly? Does that threaten you? What is top kek supposed to mean? Is that Reddit speak? Perhaps I am being unkind. Marcus Joiner (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. Blocked and tagged. – bradv  🍁  02:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New user hitting the same points right after the last sock was blocked. Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

JzG has pre-emptively blocked the user, should they be unblocked now? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * JzG has unblocked Knowledge Contributor0. Since the joe job (case archived at ) introduced some confusion, let me clarify here that  and  are (as of right now) the only two sockpuppets of Wikinger that were masquerading as . Brian K Horton et al., Wikinger, and all of the sockpuppets of both individuals are eligible to be globally locked. —  Newslinger   talk   09:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I think this isn't Wikinger, and it's unlikely to be Brian K Horton. I'll ping just as a cross-check. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this to be Brian K Horton either. The technical information doesn't match (not even close), and the motives for wanting to discuss the Daily Mail appear to be completely different. – bradv  🍁  21:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Checkusers say no, so I think this can be closed. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

First edit is to JIMBOTALK arguing for inclusion of the Daily Mail. Username pattern seems deliberately designed to flag this as a sock. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'll admit, first edit to jimbo talk doesn't sound like a legitimate new user. But, angst about WP:DAILYMAIL is not exactly unique, and I'm hesitant to reflexively tag anybody who complains about it as a Horton sock, as seems to have been the case with Knowledge Contributor0.  Is there some more specific aspect to this which ties them to Horton? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A comparison with Jack B Williamson makes this possible, certainly, but I'm comfortable blocking per DUCK given content and certain idiosyncrasies. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagged, closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same formulaic username style, same focus on the Daily Mail as previous socks Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. –  bradv  🍁  19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The big red flags for me, both present in their first edit at RSN (diff are: Pinging  for a smell test and any additional thoughts. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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


 * It should be noted that another recent account has recently been blocked as a sockpuppet of Brian K Horton/Crows Nest by  after a long period of inactivity, with a similar focus on British tabloids, probably worth checking the IP of that account also. The long screeds of both accounts are characteristic of Crows Nest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was mainly comparing to Happy Shoes. Their contributions are all focused on the same tabloid issue and Guy, for example this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that checkusers cannot reveal any personal information, but could we please know whether the accounts geolocate to the same area and whether it matches one of the following Daily Mail offices? (no need to reveal which one).
 * Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT
 * Landmark Imperium, Imperial Way, Reading Berkshire, RG2 0TD
 * Embassy House, 3rd floor, Herbert Park Lane, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4
 * 7575 Gateway Blvd, Suite 300 Newark CA 94560
 * 600 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10020
 * 5th Floor, The Palladium, Cluster C, Jumeirah Lakes Towers, P.O. Box 33817 Dubai, United Arab Emirates
 * Uttar Pradesh, India Does anyone have a mailing address for this one?


 * Behavioral evidence suggests that this is a group of meatpuppets working for The Daily Mail, most likely at one of the above addresses.


 * When you are working at a media outlet, one of the tools you have at your fingertips is a database of everything your organization has ever published. In this case that would be Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, Ireland on Sunday, etc. Searching that database for "The Daily Mail" and "Wikipedia" would bring up this article, where The Daily Mail criticizes me by name. To be fair, other publications have covered this and I purposely use my real name as my user name when I could have chosen to remain anonymous.


 * There have also been multiple off-wiki attacks on me, most likely from the same group of Daily Mail employees:


 * "Never pick a fight with anyone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton"  :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This is just all over again. Can't he be blocked for good?VikingDrummer (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC) sock of banned user

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
These accounts are confirmed to each other. I'm undecided whether to say they are very likely User:Brian K Horton or very likely User:AttackTheMoonNow, because at this point I believe they are very likely all the same person. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Immediately after the block of User:Mr Happy Shoes, this new user showed up at my talk page making exactly the same kind of post as Mr Happy Shoes - defending the Daily Mail and arguing for the inclusion of alleged criminal charges against Marek Kukula. [1] That is the new user's only edit so far and it was enough for me. I went ahead and sock-blocked them. Reporting here for the record. IMO it is very likely that similar socks will turn up shortly. If I see any before this is acted on, I will add them to this report. MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, along with, also already blocked. – bradv  🍁  05:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Fresh account, same focus on Marek Kukula as recent socks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. Blocked, tagged, closing. – bradv  🍁  18:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . --Blablubbs&#124;talk 21:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Blatant sock trying to talk to me in response to the previous block Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Sigh. – bradv  🍁  19:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . --Blablubbs&#124;talk 21:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account that has only made edits relating to the use of the Daily Mail to include claims about Marek Kukula, including the same types of long talk page comments with a focus on. Their first comment was to respond to a comment by Guy Macon, followed by another long comment in a new section where they continue the same arguments as the recently banned accounts. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. – bradv  🍁  18:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account created to complain about banned sock that I reported earlier today. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. – bradv  🍁  19:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same "real person name" username format and focus on the Daily Mail as previous socks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Clearly the Brian K Horton sockmaster is following my edits. If it's a reply to me or is about me, and it is long-winded, and it contains the same talking points that a certain paid Daily Mail employee uses eleswhere on the net, then it passes the WP:DUCK test as Yet Another Brian K Horton sock. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ to recent socks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * . --Blablubbs&#124;talk 21:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Cameron Dev is a brand new account that has only commented on talk pages about Katie Price and whether to include information in her biography. As with other sockpuppets, the account is focused on using talk pages to argue about British tabloid reporting, although now justifying including gossip-style material by appealing to the fact that the BBC has had news stories on some of these topics, rather than mentioning the Daily Mail.

Also similar to previous accounts, they use snarky, combative language and frequently disparage Wikipedia as not having a good "reputation", such as "Wikipedia is now in the reputation repair business, like it or not" and "Wikipedia doesn't have much of a reputation to start with".

They also frequently talk about being a journalist and how Wikipedia editors treat them like they are stupid, with statements that imply they are actually superior to other editors here because of their profession as a journalist. E.g., compare "Nobody cares. Happy to treat me like I am an absolute twit who knows nothing about nothing. I am dying to tell them my real job... They all desperately want to live in some magical fantasy world where tabloids are indeed on the same level as gossip, from page one to the back page, and so Wikipedia can happily ignore any and all of their reports, as if there wouldn't be any consequences." with "Wikipedia is what it is, precisely because you won't ever persuade someone like me to participate, if the price of entry is having to entertain the idea that it's people like EnPassant who are the experienced and knowledgeable people here, and I'm the dummy... I find it offensive. But that's just me. I get paid do a good job, I am expected to be professional, and I am proud of the work that and my colleagues are able to produce as a result. We are not traders of gossip or trivia or any kind of gutter trash that I think perhaps some of you think you are preventing from being added to pages like this." . (The use of the word "pages" also suggests that this is not their first interaction with Wikipedia.)

The account appears to be fixated on one editor in particular, EnPassant, which is similar to way the recent sockpuppets had constantly brought up and focused on individual editors, particularly Guy Macon. The account name is also two names that could be just a regular person's real name, which is similar to most of the other sockpuppet account names.

While the user does not seem to have brought up the Daily Mail, the language used in the increasingly longer and more emotional posts seems very similar to previous sockpuppets. I am requesting a checkuser because of the past history of multiple sockpuppets being discovered at one time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Reminder that Sockpuppet_investigations/AttackTheMoonNow is very likely the same sockmaster, there's a stack of non-stale accounts confirmed in that SPI's archives. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, it's somewhere vastly exceeding likely. I've blocked the account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Behavioural evidence only, but this 'new' contributor turned up at WP:BLPN to restart a discussion that had ended 5 days earlier - with a post that was self-evidently a WP:BLP violation. This is classic 'Brian K Horton' trolling, as is the claim to be an uninvolved 'academic', and their subsequent insistence that their entirely unsourced (and WP:BLP violating) personal opinions about 'academic integrity' belong on notice boards, article talk pages, user pages and elsewhere. Further diffs aren't really necessary, since their entire (fortunately brief) editing history demonstrates the entire sequence. Anyone at all familiar with 'Brian K Horton' either on Wikipedia or elsewhere will recognise the style immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that AcademicPerspective triggered a LTA edit filter ("Filter description: LTA edit summary or editing pattern hit") six times and that their very first edits to Wikipedia spoke approvingly of previous sockpuppetry.

I am thinking that this might not be BKH (possibly Arifer? See Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer/Archive.), but in any case it certainly passes the WP:DUCK test for sockpuppetry. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ❌ as far as I can see. Account locates to a completely different country. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * An off-wiki conversation with a CU indicates that there is no technical relationship to Arifer either; regardless of who this is, it seems like a good block., closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Name format is consistent with that used by previous Brian K. Horton socks, same focus on the Daily Mail as previous socks, (see edits to Charles III coronation talkpage 1 and to RSN 2) Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * GeneralNotability (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Very, also Barry is confirmed to . Checkusers, I've left a note on cuwiki about this one. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same username format and focus on criticising the deprecation of the Daily Mail as previous socks. Hemiauchenia 02:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * First edit at RSN to rant about Daily Mail seems pretty ducky to me. "I don't recall much if any proof submitted ..." is an odd thing for a brand new user to say about a 2017 RfC. If someone wants to try CU, the archives suggest that some data is kept at the CU wiki. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. Blocked, lock requested. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)