Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gokturklerrr/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
The two major accounts seem to be Gokturklerrr and Soldier of Seljuk 1071, with the others rather inactive. They share an interest in Turkic history and a somewhat poor grasp of the English language. One account sometimes follows on the work of the other less than an hour after article creation, as can be seen and. At Cilicia Campaign of Kayqubad the Great (1225), the edits of both accounts combined are suspiciously coherent when taken as the work of one user. Furthermore, their referencing style is fairly similar, as can be seen at page creations such as, ,. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * I would also like to add that Gokturklerrr/Soldier of Seljuk 1071 is likely User:Bakayna. Bakayna uploaded this file which was included on the new Cilicia Campaign of Kayqubad the Great (1225) that was created by Soldier of Seljuk 1071 and edited a lot by both accounts. Bakayna also had an interest in Kayqubad I, just like both accounts. --Dallavid (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we get a cleck here? Gokturklerrr removes the AfD templates here, Soldier of Seljuk 1071 did it several times on other articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). There is enough behavioural evidence to connect these two accounts. Have no clue about the others. ~Styyx Talk ? 21:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If what is being said at this thread at WP:AN is true, then that could be another solution. AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment; Like Soldier of Seljuk 1071 (see Articles for deletion/Siege of Anamur), Gokturklerrr also makes horrible cited, doubtful battle/siege-related articles such as here . A common pattern are WP:VER and WP:PRIMARY issues. The stuff that is happening at AN right now might make my previous SPI of Gokturklerrr and co. more relevant  --HistoryofIran (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * is a behavioral analysis possible? They are editing much of the same battle-related articles and have a similar citation style. Bakayna was itself a sockpuppet of User:DragonTiger23, who created many sock puppets. And Movaigonel is another user with the same battles/citations habits as Gokturklerrr and Soldier of Seljuk 1071. --Dallavid (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the bit about the similar citation style, and agree that is suspicious. In fact, it's what convinced me that it was worth doing the check.  I just took another look and can't see how I can say anything better than "unlikely".  If another admin thinks the behavioral evidence is strong enough to block despite the CU finding, they can do that, but if you're going to ask for a CU to run a check, you need to be prepared for the result to come back not how you wanted.  Looking back over the SPI history, I see there were more accounts listed originally, and they got dropped from the request.  What was that all about? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one who requested a CU check, that was AirshipJungleman29, who seemed to want to focus on the more obvious accounts. Given the above mentioned AN discussion, it's alternatively possible that Gokturklerrr and Soldier of Seljuk 1071 are both being instructed on edits to make by someone running a Discord server. --Dallavid (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From the technical data, is  to .  As for, that account hasn't edited in 8 years, so no point in even going there.  This is a topic which attracts lots of interest from people with similar nationalistic views; it's inevitable that some of them will be drawn to the same articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)