Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horrifico/Archive

11 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User:Raueseixas1234567890
 * User:Raueseixas1234567890


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

IP sock blocked one week ago, now returned after block expired. Oleola (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed a mirror account. I think somebody's mocking him. --Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! &#91;&#91;User:Horrifico&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:Horrifico&#124;talk&#93;&#93;) (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2013 (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
Account is blocked and tagged. The IP may have changed by now, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Per checkuser results posted on another case, this is a sock of Horrifico, not Raul. This case was originally filed under Raulseixas, but has been moved here. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

11 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Came across this as a report to WP:AIV, looking at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/8254101 this editor admits to being a sock of Raulseixas. Blocked already as passed the quack test. Don't think Checkuser can do anything here, I've already blocked the sockpuppet, filing this for reference, can now be closed. 5 albert square (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

The block caused some harm. I was blocked as well by mistake. I think it's fixed now. --Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! &#91;&#91;User:Horrifico&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:Horrifico&#124;talk&#93;&#93;) (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Blocked and tagged. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Per checkuser results posted on another case, this is a sock of Horrifico, not Raul. This case was originally filed under Raulseixas, but has been moved here. Horrifico has been given an only warning against this kind of behavior, and his socks are blocked and tagged, including. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

24 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

CU request -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:08, 24 February 2013 (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

 * ✅ the following are related:

-- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 04:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

25 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

RFA trolling. FlyingPuppy2 already has a CU block, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Impersonators_at_RFA. A sleeper check is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I've added in . GiantSnowman 15:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * and now GiantSnowman 16:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us not forget Wizerdman. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Except for FlyingPuppy2, which is listed in the archive, none of these accounts are Horrifico. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

30 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Procedural filing, as I ran this check and want a second person to decide what action (if any) is appropriate rather than acting unilaterally myself. (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' What'd I do? My brother is the culprit here, I'm innocent. See the logs at #wikipedia-en-helpers (my brother caused a scene there). --Morgoth2 (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ the following users are related: --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing Rschen7754 07:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

11 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I am Horrifico, and I cannot take the pressure anymore. Block me if you wish. I just cannot keep my secret anymore. I have not done anything harmful to the wiki, but I will not pretend to be something I'm not. I hope I don't get blocked, it's just that the strain of everything is too much for me to keep this secret anymore. DarthNightmaricus (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm sure you'll be fine. -– Cathfolant   (talk)  02:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC) I hope so. --DarthNightmaricus (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Hmm. I am inclined to wonder if this is trolling. However, whether for trolling, for sockpuppetry, or for both, the account clearly needs to be blocked, so I shall do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

16 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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


 * Commentary on hydrostatic equilibrium in dwarf planets, , , , ,


 * DN-boards1 (already blocked) claims to be Horrifico:


 * Interact extensively, with Huritisho commenting on DN-boards1:, , , ,


 * "Huri ti sho" produces sanguinary translations in Google Translate consistent with Horrifico.


 * Both accounts basically make large changes that seem to deliberately disregard consensus, eg, this page move just now when a Requested Move in 2014 declined it. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP (201.54.129.39) left a death threat on the talk page of, who DN-boards1 didn't get along with.


 * 201.54.129.39 also edits articles about moons and was just requesting the page move  that Huritisho made.


 * Huritisho browbeats editors about sources, whereas DN-boards1 conspicuously failed to cite sources and was browbeaten for it. Geogene (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've since noticed that the IP was blocked on September 15th for block evasion by Tetra quark . Some of the behaviors in that archive seem familiar as well (moving lots of images around in astronomy articles, notability, and edit warring at Universe Sandbox) this may need a procedural close or move to the Tetra quark thread. I've added that account to the list. Geogene (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * LordStarscream100 has 36 edits, two of which were longevity/"last living survivor"-type articles, ; one of which was soon after edited by DN-boards1 three days later . Does not source the content they add. Horror-themed username. Highly compartmentalized area of interest. Geogene (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

What are you talking about? That's nonsense. Sure, I interacted with DN boards a few times, so what? I interact with many people who edit similar articles. Also, this claim ''"Huri ti sho" produces sanguinary translations in Google Translate [12] consistent with Horrifico. (it translates to Pretend blood Statement, which is a sentence that makes no sense whatsoever)'' is pure conspiracy theory and... paranoia. That's not a reason to accuse anyone of anything, vut ok, run the CheckUser then. Later you'll owe me an apology Huritisho 02:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment - It is evident that Huritisho is extremely well aware of the inner workings of Wikipedia, a notable skill if you consider the account was created only 21 days ago. In addition, he displays certain willingness to edit-war. So I also feel he is a sock puppet of someone else. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Edits like a sock of a banned user. Has started disrupting several articles on my watch list. Area of interest and level of incompetence similar to DN-boards1. — kwami (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Has now started deleting comments from this thread. That's in line with how they edit article space. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would just like to note this user is totally unrelated. He's been reverted by multiple people on Charon (moon) Huritisho 06:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed -- totally unrelated. There's no collusion here. If Huritisho is not a sock, they need a mentor to learn how to edit within their area of competence. E.g., not to delete mathematical calculations because they don't understand them. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment User:DN-boards1 also showed a large understanding of Wikipedia procedures here in that the editor repeatedly found redirects based on old people articles and recreated their pages and fought their deletions in AFD discussions. Further evidence can be seen at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist (asking to whitelist a very specific world's oldest people forum). I don't see any indication that Horrifico has any similar interests. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that observation. I think it's clear from evidence (including some I just now posted) that Huritisho is a sock of Tetra quark. Since they were interacting with DN-boards1 in somewhat overlapping areas I think they should be CU-compared. I'm not sure there's evidence that either is Horrifico, beyond the claim from DN-boards1. Geogene (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just added a relatively new account that shows a transition between longevity records and Horrifico-type user name. Geogene (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The very first edits by Huritisho show good experience with Wikiediting: . The following specific edits concerned with image placement:, are very similar to these of TetraQuark: , . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment On 15 October, 201.54.129.39 (a known TetraQuark IP address) wrote in the Java article talk page that the Java article should be moved: . The next day, on 16 October, Huritisho moved the Java article to Java (Indonesia): . More generally, both TetraQuark and Huritisho show very similar editing interests. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The new User talk:Rudy235 (contributions: ) also has ‎an extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, (not typical of new users) and edits many of the the same space-related subjects as DN-boards1, with similar style and war-like attitude. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What can I say? I may be a "new" user but I have a fast learning curve. Now can we all try to get back to the business of improving wikipedia for the rest?Rudy235 (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added them to the list. Primefac (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems particularly interested in the physical properties of outer solar system objects. Geogene (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is suspected to be who? I can't even keep up with this anymore Huritisho 02:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect you're Tetra quark, and possibly also Horrifico/DN-boards1. Even if not, there are grounds for a CU to look for sleeper accounts of both sockmasters. Geogene (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Another similarity between Huritisho and Rudy235 is that neither are able to do arithmetic, though that doesn't stop them from deleting or adding calculations to the articles (Charon, Nix). — kwami (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Huritisho, so I'll let him answer about that, but not only I know how to do arithmetic, I also know algebra, analytical geometry, calculus, invariants, laplace transformations, modular arithmetic, group theory and a few things more. Thank you for bringing that up!  As a bonus, I can give you some pointers in English: "Neither is" is preferable to "neither are".Rudy235 (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can only go by what I see, and what I saw is that you weren't able to convert x±y into a range for x. Perhaps it was an oversight. Huritisho isn't able to do simple division with a calculator, so that would suggest you are different people (if you can indeed calculate x±y).
 * "Neither are" is correct in this context. I had to correct myself when I wrote "neither is". — kwami (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is high school physics! x±y converts to into range as  (x+y)/2 to (x-y)/2  I admit that I do have difficulty in puting new references as I do not have full knowledge (yet) of that skill . What really surprises me more than anything I've seen, is the attitude of some users that instead of helping when one makes a typo or overlooks something, jump at the opportunitty of making up baseless acussations.   Instead of being helpful and cooperative they are quick at the chance of UNDOING something without even actually trying to correct it. The job one might do took the user perhaps 15 to 20  (17.5 ± 2.5) minutes and yet instead of cooperating (which they could) they simply destroy "willy-nilly".  And as to the accussations about me being someone else? Where the frick did that came from?  Is that a hobby of bored "old users" who find it amusing to do so rather than doing actual positive work for the benefit of everyone who reads the encyclopedia?  I have a suggestion.  Everyone that makes an accussation like this which requires volunteers and editors to do extra work, should donate FIVE dollars to Wikipedia. That is five dollars for each person they accuse. If the accusation is then found to be grounded in reality the five dollar donation is returned. If it is not proven, Wikipedia keeps the donation.  Perhaps that way people would think twice before leveling these malicious statements. Rudy235 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. Many editors here seem to be lazy. They just revert when an edit is more complex (like a few of your edits), especially if the edit comes from an IP address. I used to edit as an IP for a while before registering and I know what it's like. What's more interesting is that old editors were supposed to be those who contribute the most, but in reality, they seem barely edit at all. All they do is make minor edits and stalk the new users trying to contribute. I could mention a few examples but it wouldn't be appropriate to ping certain people here. Anyway, don't take things too personally, man. Cheers, Huritisho 05:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Huritisho: Please don't agree too much with me. Because for some gutless wonders when two or more people agree, it is prima facie evidence that the are the same person mascarading as a different user. And I would really think that if we disagreed vehemently in their minds they would simply say that we are doing it to throw them off the scent!Rudy235 (Rudy235) 05:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This guy fucks Huritisho 09:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the type of abuse typical of TetraQuark. Huritisho is a sock of TetraQuark. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? That's not abuse. That's a way of saying "this guy is cool" or "this guy is badass". Huritisho 13:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is . There are no confirmed puppets to compare against.
 * The following accounts are ❌ to each other:
 * If one takes DN-boards1's admission at face value, Rudy235 and LordStarscream100 are not related to Horrifico.
 * is ✅ to . Blocked and tagged.
 * I'm taking no action against the other named accounts. If a clerk wishes to tag DN-boards1 as a suspected puppet of Horrifico, that would require a behavioral analysis, although the admission should be taken into account. There's some suspicion that DN-boards1 has been evading their block with an IP based on a template put on their userpage by . I haven't tried to check which IP she is referring to. I just removed the template for the time being because of the issue of whether the user is lying or is in fact a puppet of Horrifico and should be tagged accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23: . This was evidently subsequently connected to . Behavior evidence only, obviously. I have no idea if the user is related to the older account, other that (as you note) DN-boards 1 professes to be. Please move this to comments by other users if appropriate. I'm not sure if I'd count as "other users" or not, since my only action here has been administrative. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * is ✅ to . Blocked and tagged.
 * I'm taking no action against the other named accounts. If a clerk wishes to tag DN-boards1 as a suspected puppet of Horrifico, that would require a behavioral analysis, although the admission should be taken into account. There's some suspicion that DN-boards1 has been evading their block with an IP based on a template put on their userpage by . I haven't tried to check which IP she is referring to. I just removed the template for the time being because of the issue of whether the user is lying or is in fact a puppet of Horrifico and should be tagged accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23: . This was evidently subsequently connected to . Behavior evidence only, obviously. I have no idea if the user is related to the older account, other that (as you note) DN-boards 1 professes to be. Please move this to comments by other users if appropriate. I'm not sure if I'd count as "other users" or not, since my only action here has been administrative. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * DN-boards1 tagged as a sock of Horrifico per behavior and his own admitting. Closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

30 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

WP:DUCK. Copy-pastes mini-bios from List of supercentenarians from the United States and uses them to create independent articles without giving attribution. They then delete the content from the original article. Same edit summaries while doing this:, , ,. They have similar ideas about about the notability being conferred automatically by reaching some particular age or age ranking, ,. Many of these diffs may be about to disappear due to speedy delete nominations. Geogene (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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


 * The case for a sock looks convincing to me. DN-boards1 did quite a lot of damage. Sailor Haumea looks to be on the same path. I will add that both DN-boards1 and Sailor Haumea are interested in Confederate soldiers: and . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure how admissible this is, but a user going by both names (and freely admitting it) was frequently in IRC before DN-boards1 got banned and we gave them the boot from the helpers channel. Primefac (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are :
 * I've blocked Sailor Haumea. I'll leave tagging up to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged, closing. Mike V • Talk 15:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Sailor Haumea. I'll leave tagging up to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged, closing. Mike V • Talk 15:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)