Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurtan~enwiki/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Serial sockpuppeteer associated with a globally locked account (see global blocklog of User:Ferrofield: ). The behavioral identifications match the original Kurtan account (now renamed) with a Swedish provenance and an obsession with the subject of this AfD:. BabbaQ is currently unblocked, but is also documented to have been a sockmaster account in the past, so I'm doing the due diligence of filing the report. It may not be possible to determine overlap from checkuser due to the staleness of the previous reports (but see also and Sockpuppet investigations/BabbaQ), but the WP:DUCK aspect of the !keep vote makes me think that this is deserving of some third-party eyes and perhaps an inquiry as to whether there are other sleeper socks. jps (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think if you compare the master account's comments in the previous AfDs you will find a similar sort of WP:Source counting. Declaring three sources(!) confer notability on a subject is, shall we say, unusual, but, then, in Articles for deletion/Masreliez's Theorem a very similar strange argument was made in almost the same fashion. Of course this could all be coincidence, but what else do we have to go by other than a coinciding of behavioral evidence? jps (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So basically you got nothing but a notion that a !vote might be similar. The CU was declined. There are no connection between me and this sock. You make a notion into a fact. There are no connection between me and the account in question.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I have no association to that account. If my inclusion in this investigation is based on my vote at C. Johan Masreliez then I think this is hasty at best. I learned my lesson years ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * could you provide more evidence based on their AFD activity? BabbaQ makes, shall we say routine, edits to AFD, voting keep with little to no thought. I find it borders on incompetency or at least lack of effort but, in his defense, I do not think he has repeated his offense as a sockmaster.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The nom has a strawman argument against me. So thank you TheGracefulSlick. I will not comment any further because I know that there are no connection between me and the socks. Thanks again.BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I was flagged to come here on my talk page probably because I meet BabbaQ almost daily at AfD, which we both frequent. I will say that he raised no suspicions on my part (editing AfD has made me become very suspicious,) and that I had noticed that his iVotes have recently grown more thoughtful, and, therefore more useful to the discussions.  Mostly, however, I want to say that I cannot like investigating any editor on the basis of an accusation with so little in the way of supporting examples.  This sort of unsupported accusation only serves to make the accused feel unfairly attacked, to enhance the BATTLEGROUND atmosphere that prevails in may on Wikipedia in too many topic areas, and to drive good editors to give up and disappear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With apologies, I now see how to access the comps Nom brought and have read them. Some of those articles have had hundreds of editors (Astrid Lindgren), Usertalk:DougWeller has gotten thousands,  but even the oddball ones like Wu Ping don't look problematic or improbable to me; I remember that photo of her real estate holdout even though I had forgotten her name, it circulated incredibly widely, at least in U.S. media.  If there is something in the edits themselves, I've looked and I'm not seeing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm a friend of BabbaQ, but I'm kind of confused. The editor interaction analysers for both Ferrofield and Kurtan~enwiki are indicators that they don't share much in common, with a minimum time of 1 year between edits. I am actually just surprised as to how BabbaQ relates to the case at all, sorry. —  Tuxipεdia ( talk ) 19:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The only account that is not stale is BabbaQ. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action. There are enough differences between the socks and BabbaQ. Kurtan & Ferrofield were both pretty good with using edit summaries, but BabbaQ and the accounts on Sockpuppet investigations/BabbaQ consistently almost never leave edit summaries. The strong lack of overlap on the editor interaction analyser is also convincing, as already stated. Sro23 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)