Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank/Archive

20 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

An incident was under discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard concerning a major behaviour problem with Bhtpbank (currently on a 72 hour block.  During the discussion a new account was created Wayne Ambler whose sole edit was to the above ANI thread in an attempt to claim that regular users could not contribute to the thread .  It was noted in the ANI that the sockpuppetry was obvious.

The only reason that I have requested a checkuser, is because it is possible that it may be decided that one single edit does not establish a sockpuppetry pattern. I commend this case to the experts. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2014 (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

 * No surprises here; is ✅ as . Having alternate accounts is allowed under certain circumstances, however this one was obviously created in violation of policy.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sock tagged and blocked indef, master's block extended one week for socking. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

11 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I just blocked this user for personal attacks, but the suspicion of sockpuppetry was brought up on AN/I by and the evidence, while not conclusive, certainly seems compelling enough to warrant further examination. For the sake of simplicity I will just copy his comment:

"Frankly, I'm reminded very strongly of (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826 for the thread which eventually got him banned). There's the same overt and unnecessary hostility toward other users, and the same interest in railway electrification. The Intersect Contribs tool turns up some unlikely overlaps. This isn't dispositive, but it's interesting."

Thanks, S warm   ♠  07:25, 11 September 2015 (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 data is stale, unless has any notes from the earlier check. -- Versa  geek  17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * is Bhtpbank, along with, who is a technical and behavioral match.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're beautiful. Blocked em both accordingly. S warm   ♠  20:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

07 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Yet another new editor springs up and displays many of the recognisable signs of our old friend Bhtpbank.

Repeated reversion of an article on the grounds that he is right and everyone else wrong. diff, diff, diff (note; the current version by more than one editor). Classic Bhtpbank behaviour.

Demonstrates familiarity with the 3RR rule by not reverting a fourth time.

A discussion took place at Talk:Blu-ray. In that discussion, Uk55 continues to argue that his version of the resolution chart is the right one and that everyone else must be wrong. In that discussion it is clear that Uk55 is not a new editor by any means as there is a familiarity with the way Wikipedia works (at least the bits that support his agenda). This was classic Bhtpbank behaviour.

Uk55 accuses others of 'jumping down his throat' when all they are doing is disagreeing with him.

And the clincher which Bhtpbank and nearly all of his socks have resorted to is to make accusations that those who are agreeing with each other must be sockpuppets of each other diff (Original Bhtpbank allegation here). The evidence offered: that they agree with each other and come from the same country.

There is no evidence whatsoever of country of origins in the discussion - only the IP address is geolocatable. Any knowledge of my, or 's geographical location can only have come from a previous interaction under another user name. Note also the classic smokescreen of an editor clearly familiar with the workings of Wikipedia by the camouflage of feigning of not being familiar with procedure. Of course, he (and others) fail to get the idea that they are not agreeing with each other, but disagreing with him.

How many new editors of a couple of months standing know about 3RR, sockpuppetry and the tea house?

There are a few other significant pointers, but I will keep those to myself because these can be used against future socks. -- Live Rail 12:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a very clear duck test case.
 * Uk55 is not the new user he is making himself out to be. He has a familiarity with Wikiprocedure and policies that is completely uncharacteristic of a genuine new editor.  How many genuine new users know of the editor interaction utility?  Certainly next to none know about the three revert rule until it is pointed out (hence the reason behind the warning template).
 * Uk55 shares a number of characteristics in common with the sockmeister and his established socks which I shall spell out here.
 * A characteristic hostility toward anyone who dares to critisise him. There are several examples but the best one is an IP address editor who posted a 3RR warning to Uk55's talk page.  As I see it the warning was a proper posting to make to a talk page when an [apparently] new user is at 3RR and is therefore a good faith posting.  The response was hostile and accusatory accusing the IP editor of harassment.  Like Bhtpbank, Uk55 clearly does not know that one post, by definition, cannot be harassment.
 * Accuses others of hostility and agreession when it is the other way around. Talk:Blu-ray shows only attempts to discuss rationally and refusal of Uk55 to accept.
 * Making wild allegations of sockpuppetry against editors who attempt to point out where he is wrong. and User talk:Skyllfully.  Again something Bhtpbank did  (more difs available if you want them).  He tries to claim that because some of us appear and then do not post for a day or two that we must be somehow the same person as someone else posting.  Some of us do have a life outside of Wikipedia and some of us are expected to show up at the office occasionally!
 * Note: Bhtpbank has specifically targetted myself and LiveRail before when he tried to argue that AC third rail systems were feasible when they are in fact not. (which is why none exist anywhere in the world). This above may therefore be a retaliatory action because he lost that argument.
 * Uk55 gave himself away that he is certainly the sockpuppet of someone (in fact this was the first thing that roused my suspicions - the rest just followed naturally). In his allegation of sockpuppetry, Uk55 claims that the IP address editing at Talk:Blu-ray is located in Britain (actually 2 IP addresses but it is clear that it is the same person with a dynamic IP). He also claims that the other three editors are British.  Nothing in the discussion gives any geographical location for any of them.  I have no user page and my talk page makes no mention.  Similarly for I B wright (user and talk) and LiveRail (user and talk).  Uk55 cannot have knowledge of these geographical locations unless he has encountered one, some or all of these editors using a previous identity.  As noted he is not the new user he is making out to be, so this is the most likely explanation.  I cannot find any evidence that I have mentioned my location for at least a couple of years or so.  The editor interaction utlity is not working at present but a manual trawl of edits shows that all have interacted with Bhtpbank in various articles and I suggest that it is quite possible that geolocations have been revealed.  I know I have done so, and I know LiveRail is British (because of the company he works for).  I cannot comment for Mr Wright.
 * The sockpuppet accounts leave a fingerprint that positively links them all together. Every sockpuppet account has made a very early edit in the history where they create a user page (which says nothing of consequence or just plain nothing). Wayne Ambler, Perryville Zoo, Luuluu MuuMuu, Bethayres, Plojjer and now Uk55.  I have sifted through many of the other new editors that have appeared this year and no one else has this fingerprint. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

More evidence
DSP and myself have both noted that Uk55 made a statement that we were British - something he could not have known from the posts at Talk:Blu-ray. Yet he finally reveals that he knew from this post that I B Wright was British. His knowledge of this post is clearly from his incarnation as Bhtpbank because it is time coincident with Bhtpbank's time on Wikipedia. He has not revealed the posts he gleaned knowledge of my and DSP's nationality, but I will lay odds it is from the same era or the era of one of his other socks.


 * Addendum: I was checking a few things today, when I came across thispost from IBW. Here he claims to be Canadian (posted at 10:49 on the 10th).  Uk55 less than 5 hours later (15:26) posts the link to where IBW first claimed that he was British (I think IBW may have laid a trap and Uk55 took the bait).  Now assuming that Uk55 did not see the post immediately and assuming that it takes some while to type up an SPI of the length that he did, how was it that he was able to come up with the claim so quickly?  I just counted back and it is in IBW's edit history 783 edits ago.  Checking 783 edits (even eliminating those that obviously aren't going to give you what you want) takes some considerable time - unless you already knew where to look.  As already pointed out: he knew where to look because the post was made while Bhtpbank was an active account and he had seen it at that time.  There is no other explanation.   -- Live Rail 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I was also a bit surprised when Uk55 revealed that he was aware of the report I filed within 12 hours of filing it (and his edit history reveals that it was most likely almost immediately after he logged on - there being only one edit shortly before and none between that and the report's initial filing). I left no notice on his talk page about this report and checking, I see that no one else has informed him either. These reports are not indexed by the sock puppet's name but by the puppet master. Uk55 has therefore most likely seen the name of his puppet master and found his name (he would have no valid reason to check the report otherwise). -- Live Rail 16:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Just found this. Bhtpbank or his socks frequently attempted to introduce something that was not relevant to a discussion but was intended to try and make him appear to be some sort of an expert when he clearly was not. A good example where his sock Luuluu MuuMuu introduced autotransformers into systems that don't use them to advance his argument. Similarly Uk55 did exactly the same trick here where he introduced two obsolete IEC standards to support his case. However the standards are not relevant to Blu-ray discs in any way but to tape based DV systems. -- Live Rail 17:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Just a clarification, but surely Uk55 knows about the editor interaction utility through being told about it here? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To clarify, Uk55 mentioned it first in his intial post to that talk page (second para first line) before being told about it. How do you 'come across' the Editor Interaction tool?
 * So they do. Apologies. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I came across it when this report was posted - it's the second link. (Edit: By 'this' I mean LiveRail's) Uk55 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not reasonable at all - see below. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gothcha again! You would need a time machine for that to be true.  My report posted (from the time stamp) 12:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC).  Your mention of the editor interaction utility (from the timestamp) 02:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC).  You mentioned the editor interaction utility  a clear 11 hours and 55 minutes before you could possibly have seen it at the head of my report - so basically you are trying to deceive everyone.  Of course, it is possible for you to have seen it at the head of the report that was filed yesterday, but you specifically claimed this report.


 * It is therefore now clear that you had knowledge of it that preceeded your creation of the Uk55 account which therefore must be a sock of the account under which you acquired that knowledge (along with the geographical locations of those editors that you are abusing). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uk55 was aware of LiveRail's report above yesterday, so the explanation offered is perfectly possible. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I conceed that point.  I keep forgeting someone beat me to the punch and responded in haste.  Not a good thing to do.   He is correct on this point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not alone in my suspicions then?


 * No, he is not correct. There is one fly in this particular ointment.  As you yourself discovered: the Editor Interaction Analyser is broken and has been broken since at least the 6th October so  could not have used it after 12:33 on the 7th October as he claims.  I have no knowledge if it was working before the 6th but if it was (and only if it was) then this is the only time  could have used it which still predates the time he claims he became aware of it.   I tried to use it on Tuesday and yesterday while compiling my report above but I couldn't get to the form to enter the editors' names.  The form itself can now be accessed but the utility is still broken and just generates rafts of errors everytime you try to use it (try it and see).   -- Live Rail 15:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's working for me, and apparently for Skyllfully too, since they posted a link to a report this morning. Try this link. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to bring up the User Comparison Report, though their normal edit times are within a ~2 hour window, they have no combined edits. Unless we are comparing to other users as well, I don't see too much of a relation between  and ; but, some of these pieces of evidence could be used to seek dispute resolution. &mdash;Skyllfully (talk &#124; contribs) 02:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen: I have conceeded the point so there is nothing to be gained by flogging it further. It is rapidly becoming a distraction from the main point.
 * The point is that Bhtpbank is currently indef blocked as a persistent sock puppeteer. I believe that the identical behaviour characteristics outlined above prove that Uk55 is Bhtpbank evading his block.  His previous sockpuppets have been altering their behaviour, but have never managed to hide the characteristic abuse of other editors who disagree with him.  This one has far more in common with Bhtpbank than most of the other sockpuppets have.  I note that a checkuser has reported that "Uk55 is technically Unrelated to Bhtpbank" in the above report, but administrators have been quick to point out that editors can operate through a proxy when this has been the case in the past.  I suggest the admins act on the behavioural evidence and decide if this one is quacking or not.


 * The main unanswered question is how a supposedly new editor (something he has not stopped claiming) knew that I live in the UK. I have been going back through my editing history and have found no mention so far (but have only got back to the end of 2013).  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment was supposed to be addressed to LiveRail. Apologies for any confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to answer here. There is no connection between me and this user whatsoever, and I think the motivation behind the reports is blindingly obvious. I'm honestly quite disappointed people are taking them seriously, but of course if any genuine 3rd party has a question I'll happily answer it. Uk55 (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is technically ❌ to .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a number of reasons why checkuser findings could result in an unrelated finding, however if I had seen evidence of proxy or webhost abuse I would have mentioned it in my results.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

There has been ping-pong socking and accusation between and  for some years.

Kirk has been with us about a year, starting shortly after, another sock, was blocked. And what are three of their first half-dozen mainspace edits? To revert (blocked that day as an  sock) and restore content from :
 * Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys
 * Muskingum Electric Railroad (restore, a different Bhtpbank sock)
 * British Rail Class 80

This week we've seen blocked as an I B Wright sock. KirksKeyKard was highly vocal in this SPI. Whether the SPI was correct to identify Elektrik Fanne as I B Wright or not, KirksKeyKard clearly thinks they're one and the same. KirksKeyKard's area of editing is overlapping with the past Bhtpbank socks (in fact, both sockmasters have a large overlap): it is concerning that Kirk and Bhtpbank admit to be not only engineers, but more specifically electrical engineers. They are also familiar with "mercury arc rectifiers", something that was given as clearly claimed evidence of socking in the I B Wright case.

This year-long pursuit, and the content overlaps, strongly suggest a socking issue between KirksKeyCard and Bhtpbank. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is highly revealing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.153.41 (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Just to note that this is the second time that an editor who has reported an sock has themselves been accused of being a sock of Bhtpbank, seemingly in retaliation (see Sockpuppet_investigations/Bhtpbank/Archive). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So apart from accusing me of "retaliation" (what for? I'd never heard of Kirk until today), do you have any comment on the SPI here? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry - retaliation was too strong a word in this instance. You seemed annoyed at the latest SPI. "Response" would have been a better word. Of course, your suspicions could be correct and we could have two sets of socks battling each other - one from Wright and one from Bhtpbank. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is very obvious that we have had two sets of socks battling each other for years. The only questions are as to who this week's incarnations are.
 * If I'm annoyed, it's because one of these SPIs was closed as "confirmed" (which usually means a technical CU check) with no other comment, yet the other had a CU denied as stale. Yet both sockmasters are equally stale. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This case is so transparently obvious, it is a wonder it is still unactioned. Quite apart from the reversions restoring material from other Bhtpbank socks (there are actually four such reversions), The really telling feature is that both Bhtpbank (either as himself or a sock) and KirksKeyKard have edited two very specialist articles, both of which are likely to have very low foot falls. One might just be a coincidence, but two?
 * Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys is about one specific school. Edited by Bhtpbank on 5 Jan 2014, and again (as Bethayres) on 8 Sep 2015, and then edited by KirksKeyKard on 23 Oct 2015.  This last edit was not just a simple reversion but added new material.  Is this by any chance Bhtpbank's school?
 * Muskingum Electric Railroad is a very specialist article and has about as low a foot fall as it is possible to get having only had 23 edits since the article's creation in October 2008. Yet Bhtpbank edited the article (as Plojjer) on 7 Jul 2015.  KirksKeyKard has made five edits to this article on three separate days.

It is also worth noting the timing of the account. It was created on 16 October 2015 around one month after Bethayres was clocked as a Bhtpbank sock. Historically, the replacement account springs to life around a few weeks after as a sock is reported. By an astonishing coincidence KirksKeyKard stopped editing on the very day this sock report was filed. However, he started again yesterday, presumably due to the lack of action that this SPI complaint has received (which is clearly down to a backlog rather than not being taken seriously).

And this and this show an astonishingly large overlap of editing on over two dozen very specialist articles, some of which have very small numbers of actual contributors. 148.252.129.118 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've interacted with all the past accounts of this user and I find the behavioral evidence convincing. Mackensen (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The master and the socks in the archives are. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocking indefinitely. After a complete review of the evidence here and digging through the contributions, I'm convinced. The timing is certainly convenient, with this sock being registered days after Bhtpbank returned to his long-blocked account to make a few edits to his user talk. The first edits include supporting other Bhtpbank socks and the creation of a template and a documentation page that I wouldn't expect from a new editor (see Template:CF Bonnett/doc, for instance). Their manner of typing is very similar, and the same dispute with the other sockmaster is there. When taken together, the evidence is strong enough to support a block. ~ Rob 13 Talk 09:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * - added by Jehochman Talk
 * - added by Jehochman Talk


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

Bhtpbank is an editor with an engineering background and an interest in railway electrification. He was banned in 2014 for personal attacks, tendentious editing, and (weak) outing threat. He's returned with various new accounts over the years, which all eventually get into trouble and get blocked for the same behavior. There's an open ANI discussion about Morphenniel right now: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He's been blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing, but he also made a comment outing. Several editors have remarked on the similarity to Bhtpbank. I would suggest that for contributions you compare against the most recent known sock, KirksKeyKard. The report against KirksKeyKard was filed on December 8, 2016. Morphenniel registered his account on December 13, 2016. The CU wasn't acted on because the IPs were stale, but blocked on behavioral evidence on January 1, 2017. I can possibly provide some additional context off-wiki, if necessary. Mackensen (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A very interesting and relevant behavioural match: Morphenniel posted to the ANI thread that people not directly involved in the discussion should not post to it (here). Bhtpbank tried the exact same approach using the first sock account he created (here).


 * Incidentally, for the sake of completeness, this sock farm would benefit from a comparison with Sockpuppet investigations/Biscuittin/Archive where the editing overlap and behavioural similarity is more than just a coincidence. -109.152.184.207 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't see this as Biscuittin. Biscuittin never had this sort of hostility, and I personally always got on pretty well with them. Morphenniel clearly has some sort of grudge. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Given that Morphenniel started out with some very not-newbie edits, I still wonder if they're a sock of somebody else, Bhtpbank or not. (Not least because of the similarity to Morpheus, which I wonder is a convoluted joke about it being a sleeper account. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The case is. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a second account which is not stale. Second account appeared on the same thread and elsewhere immediately after first account was blocked.  If they are equal, both can be indeffed. Jehochman Talk 16:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Morphenniel is a sockmaster. I really hate ministrators is ❌ to Morphenniel. The accounts is part of a group of accounts with, uh, colorful, sometimes gross, usernames. I can't tell who the master is. Many of the accounts were already blocked. I blocked any that weren't. You might enjoy looking at one of the accounts' userpages: . I would never tag these kinds of accounts and intentionally left the userpage intact for posterity. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)