Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horhey420/Archive

29 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Both accounts cite many of the same sources, with the same formatting style, advancing the same arguments and promoting the same POV on many of the same articles related to US foreign policy (with a focus on Latin America in particular). I'm not sure much more needs to be said--I'm not 100% certain, but pretty much any edit to any article by either editor could be used as evidence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Having been tracking a lot of this editors work, I find the accusation a little doubtful, in the sense there is no sign of classic sock behavior. In the one disagreement we had, TBTIS behaved with remarkable decorum. Does he push a POV? Academic consensus on American foreign policy in Latin America is often seen to have an anti-American POV by conservatives, though by Wikipedia standards it is certainly not. TBTIS has been sticking fairly well to academic sources, on the pages that I have been watching, and therefore is only as POV as the academic consensus.

That said, I was not acquainted with the alleged sockmaster, so I cannot comment on any of their signature. If grounds for a CU are found, then the truth will out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * He's already accused me of being Iloveandrea.--The Best There Is &#39;Snikt!&#39; (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did I forget to ask for Checkuser? In justifying that request, I stand by my original statement: Randomly compare edits by TBTIS to those made by Horhey420 . Even in this small sample we see the same POV (and it is a POV, as demonstrated by the edit summaries alone), the same style, and certainly the same general arguments. As for evidence of TBTIS' prior editing experience, just look at those edits made on his first day (including to relatively obscure pages such as United States–Venezuela relations). I'd also like to invite User:Nick-D, who has past experience with Horhey420, to comment here.
 * This edit is a prime example. I'm sorry, ask anyone who was familiar with Horhey420 how plausible it is that there could be another editor with a style so nearly identical.
 * In addition, TBTIS has directly continued in Horhey420's footsteps at Guatemalan Civil War (which was partially cleaned-up after Horhey420's massive source misrepresentations and extensive copyright violations) by creating a new article on United States Intervention in Guatemalan Civil War, which as far as I'm concerned is a smoking gun with all its blockquotes. They use many of the same sources (Thomas Carothers, Oxfam's "Threat of a Good Example?", Michael McClintock, ect.) as well.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

McClintock and Carothers are hardly problematic sources, at least by Wikipedian standards. I can see that a person brought up on the standard American version of History may be uncomfortable with them, but to anybody respecting academic integrity, they are fine. I would also point out that there was an occasion when TBTIS tried to remove the Oxfam source you are objecting to, and only reinstated it because myself and another editor asked them to. You cannot seem to point to a single edit that is a problem in itself, which is a prerequisite for a CU, is it not? Merely using sources that not everybody likes, without tag-teaming or anything, is not "abusing" editorial privileges....Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That said, he could certainly improve their style, block quotes and googlebooks references make editing a nightmare for anybody following them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless Horhey420 got permission to return, he would be automatically abusing editorial privileges.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of that, but that is something only a CU can show, and for a CU to be approved, you need either abusive behaviour by a single account or enough evidence to point to a quacker, which I do not believe you have. Or am I misunderstanding the CU requirements? Anyhow, this is not a very important conversation; all I was trying to say was that in my opinion, this stops short of duckish behaviour, the editor is trying to be careful in a way that few socks I have encountered have (and I edit the Indian pages; there are socks by the bucketload, there.) Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Since Horhey420 is stale and you're going for a WP:DUCK here, you'll need a lot more evidence to convince me that they are certainly the same user. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 12:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with Horhey420's editing pattern, and have no doubt at all that this is their latest block evading account. I have just blocked this account accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)