Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank

Bhtpbank

Bhtpbank (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank/Archive.

08 December 2016

– A checkuser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets

• KirksKeyKard (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

There has been ping-pong socking and accusation between Bhtpbank (talk · contribs) and I B Wright (talk · contribs) for some years.

Kirk has been with us about a year, starting shortly after Bethayres (talk · contribs), another Bhtpbank (talk · contribs) sock, was blocked. And what are three of their first half-dozen mainspace edits? To revert LiveRail (blocked that day as an I B Wright sock) and restore content from Bethayres:

• Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys
• Muskingum Electric Railroad (restore Plojjer (talk · contribs), a different Bhtpbank sock)
• British Rail Class 80

This week we've seen Elektrik Fanne (talk · contribs) 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)

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 I B Wright sock has themselves been accused of being a sock of Bhtpbank, seemingly in retaliation (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bhtpbank/Archive#07 October 2015). 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 I B Wright 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 socks 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 clearly as stale. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The master and the socks in the archives are  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

---