Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kapgan Kağan/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
At Battle of Mansurah (1250), Kapgan Kağan altered the (sourced) result from "French victory" to "French tactical victory, Ayyubid pyrrhic victory". Compare Yeniseian, who changed it from "French victory" to "Crusader Tactical victory, Egyptian Strategic Victory". Here "Crusader" obviously refers to the French and "Egyptian" to the Ayyubids.

Same happened in the Battle of Rovine article;

Kapgan Kağan added the unsourced "Ottoman pyrrhic victory", just like Yeniseian HistoryofIran (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Please also see. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

this and this make me think that this case sounds ducky ... ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CU - the suspected master is, meaning no CU data will be available. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking as a sock of  on behavioral grounds, seeing the recurrence of the phrase 'pyrrhic victory' in the editing at Battle of Mansurah (1250). Warring about how to describe the outcome of a battle is one of the things we see all the time at WP:AN3. It is a major preoccupation of nationalists. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagged accounts. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
There seems to be either some ongoing sock or perhaps meatpuppetry. The former was also expressed by another editor. The recent ANI thread might also be of interest. As mentioned in the ANI, this may very well be related to the Long-term abuse/KızılBörü1071 and Sockpuppet investigations/Smokva26/Archive cases. Regarding the latter, this is curious, both Kabz15 and Smokva26 trying to dispute the origin of the exact same figure and trying to Turkify him (Smokva26 Smokva26Kabz15).

A common aspect between these users is that they are trying to make the outcome of *insert Turkic-related nation here* (Ottomans, Gokturks, etc) more favourable. Also, if you look at the edits of these users, the vast majority are related to warfare.

Btw, Yeniseian is a confirmed sock of Kapgan Kağan per the recently created SPI that hasn't been archived yet.

--

Anyways, as for this SPI, the EIA results are too suspicious, considering they're all new users (the EIA results Kabz15 v Gokturklerrr / Kabz v Yeniseian / Gokturklerrr v Yeniseian / Gokturklerrr v Kapgan Kagan). Funny, many of the articles shown in the EIA are brand new articles created by Kabz15 (Battle of Ash-Shihr, Algiers expedition (1516), Siege of Székesfehérvár (1543), Siege of Šabac (1521), Siege of Buda (1530), Siege of Buda (1529), Siege of Valpovo, Fall of Saruj).

What do many of these new articles have in common? They are all apparently battles that led to a 'Ottoman victory', something Kapgan Kağan/Yeniseian, KızılBörü1071, and Smokva are obsessed about per the SPIs/ANI up above.

Some similar diffs from the EIA;

Battle of Ash-Shihr; both reverting the result back to 'Ottoman victory' (Kapgan Kagan Kabz15)

Ottoman–Safavid War (1532–1555); Both removed the 'Safavid victory' bit (Kapgan Kagan Kabz15)

--

At Third Perso-Turkic War, both Gokturklerrr and Kapgan Kağan/Yeniseian started editing, barely minutes apart from each other! Both being obssessed with making the Gokturk forces appear smaller (Gokturkler Kapgan Kağan). Barely an hour after Gokturklerrr created this (horribly cited) article Turkic invasion of Armenia (628) (another Turkic victory apparently), Kapgan Kağan/Yeniseian started editing it too.

In Battle of Mansurah (1250), like Kapgan Kağan/Yeniseian, Gokturklerrr is also obsessed with making the result more favorable to the Ayyubids/'Egyptians'.

I could probably find a lot more. Hope this is reader friendly. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Comment: Hello, quite surprised to myself here. Firstly I have been making articles about warfare and have had this account on Wikipedia for more than 1 year and 6 months, it would be pretty silly for me to make separate new accounts to support my stance on edits when I’m well aware of the rule against abusively using multiple accounts. For the Ottoman-Safavid War I have that page on my watchlist and was meant to revert an edit that added Safavid victory as it seemed strange to have both Ottoman and Safavid victory in the infobox, however I was looking for more sources to support the Ottoman victory statement and once I had seen that Yeniesan had added sources to support the statement of Ottoman victory and that HistoryofIran had stated on the TP that the source supporting the Safavid victory was not valid I then removed the Safavid victory statement. Moreover, I checked the page and the user added back the Safavid victory statement 5 minutes after Yeniesans edit. I checked the edits of Gokturklerrr on the pages I created, he seems to have added categories, in fact red link categories to a non existing category page, something that should obviously be uncharacteristic of an experienced editor as myself, I’ve been on Wikipedia for more than 1 year and have more than 1,000 edits it would be very strange for me to make edits like that to a strangely named non existing category page. Furthermore, it is more than likely that these users are watching my edit history as I have more than 90 views on my user page in the last 30 days, if people are watching over my edits I cannot control their actions, I do not own any of these accounts so I cannot explain the actions of these accounts with certainty. It seems very strange to accuse a reasonably experienced user like me who is well aware of the rules against abusively using multiple accounts to be using other accounts for edits like adding categories to pages, that seems like quite a silly reason to abusively use another account. Also the edit on Muhammad Ali is not unusual, there have been a lot of users disputing his origins on the talk page. Regards Kabz15 (talk)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ❌ I couldn't find any technical data to connect and . They are editing from different countries. In my research, I noticed that  is indef blocked on the French wiki but I didn't see any detailed reasoning for that. Even if Kabz15 is not socking they should still be careful about using aggressive edit summaries and POV-pushing on the result of old battles. When we see reverting about battles it makes us suspect a nationalist motivation for the edits. If we look at Kabz15's list of contributions and search for 'revert' we see plenty of hits. Gokturklerrr edits some of the same topics but does not revert nearly as much as Kabz15. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The evidence presented here shows that these users have a similar POV, but it's not sufficient to conclude that the accounts are operated by the same person. Nationalistic editing is fairly common. In light of the CU results, I am closing this without action. Spicy (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Jalal ud-Din Manguberdi has already been indeffed. I'm only doing this to establish a connection.

Very similar personal attacks made towards me in my talk page, which even has the same title names;

Kapgan Kağan: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HistoryofIran&diff=prev&oldid=1090583820 You are doing nothing but polluting wikipedia with false things and propaganda. You made 68K edits because of unemployment. You look at your own sources of lies without speaking to us.]

Jalal ud-Din Manguberdi: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HistoryofIran&diff=1110673053&oldid=1110221437 You goddamn propagandist Iranian! You make edits against the Turks at every opportunity and give false information. You're doing this because it doesn't work for you. Previously, this page was created as "Indecsive". He later changed to a Portuguese nationalist. I just fixed it. Your attitude, these lies, explains everything. On Wikipedia, you just make money by making propaganda. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making 72K edits like you're unemployed. How have you not been banned yet? Damn vandal.]

Jalal ud-Din Manguberdi's "knowledge" (and hostility) about me also clearly demonstrates that he is not new here.

I wonder if their world would fall apart when they learn that I am not only employed but also go to uni, lol. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 16 September 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

 * is ✅ to as well as the following two:
 * Can a clerk tag all four of these as socks of Kapgan Kağan if appropriate? I have blocked all four of them under this case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can a clerk tag all four of these as socks of Kapgan Kağan if appropriate? I have blocked all four of them under this case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can a clerk tag all four of these as socks of Kapgan Kağan if appropriate? I have blocked all four of them under this case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Tagged, closing. Spicy (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)