Per their
talk page, BaharatlıCheetos2.0 has been warned nine times by other editors in the month since their account was created, including two warnings for edit warring and one warning for
using multiple accounts or coordinated editing. The BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı account was created within two days after the most recent warning given to BaharatlıCheetos2.0. A quick comparison of edits by
BaharatlıCheetos2.0 and
BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı shows that, of the five articles edited by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı, three were also edited by BaharatlıCheetos2.0. Furthermore, the largest number of edits made by both accounts were to a single, recently created article,
Anglo-Turkish war of 1918–1923.
This edit by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı refers to the article as "my article" despite being ostensibly a new user.
Huntthetroll (
talk)
21:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The chief architect of the current state of the
Turukki article.
I don't speak Turkish myself, so I don't know whether this user is calling the old account dead because of the warnings it received or because the user lost access. Perhaps someone could request an explicit acknowledgement of multiple-account-use policy from the user, one way or another.
Huntthetroll (
talk)
00:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It roughly translates to "Since I accidentally nuked the BaharatlıCheetos2.0 account, I'll continue from here". Basically discloses that it's their old account which they lost access to.
Necatorina (
talk)
00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with Jingiby, the group of editors they've shown largely overlap wtih BaharatlıCheetos2, I think a CheckUser is likely to show if these are connected or not, or if there are more accounts.
KhndzorUtogh (
talk)
12:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Firefangledfeathers @
Blablubbs Here's what I found based on the additional accounts @
Jingiby provided: IP adding Treaty of Moscow to the article
[1],
[2] - BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı adding the same
[3],
[4],
[5]. IP adding USA and Asia minor to the article
[6] (scroll down),
[7],
[8] - BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı doing the same
[9] ("extra source"),
[10].
Now per BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı comments here, this IP can't be them because the IP commented here
[11] (it's an IP from same range) and BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı thanked them
[12] like they're talking to a different person. But by the evidence itself that I've shown, as you can see, there is at the very least concerns of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.
Given this evidence, I believe a CheckUser is warranted - I know we can't CheckUser IPs, but there are clearly indications that the user has sockpuppeted/meatpuppeted, and at the very least a CheckUser will reveal if the other accounts are connected to master or not, or it'll show if there are additional accounts that were missed. For the IP evidence, please at least examine the behavioral evidence I've shown.
KhndzorUtogh (
talk)
13:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The IP's
88.236.184.51 and
78.174.205.204 (same location) have been editing extensively for the past months the exact same articles as BaharatlıCheetos2. with
significant overlap. A clear example is in the article of
Turukkaeans where both IP's had been trying to insert a
pseudoscientific theory regarding their Turkic origins:
1,
2. When they were both reverted multiple times, BaharatlıCheetos2.0 tried to insert the same theory back to the article the same day:
3,
4. The
history shows their large overlap in the article. Like the others said, it is very likely that the user has engaged in sock/meat puppeting and I believe a check can be warranted.
Piccco (
talk)
15:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems that the first two IP's are undoubtedly related. The third one that Insanityclown1 provided (
188.119.21.2), which appeared the same day to support BaharatlıCheetos2.0., also made personal attacks.
Piccco (
talk)
21:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A fellow user just
informed me on my talk page that this might be
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34, which seems very plausible. A brief description about Tirgil34 from the link; Persistent spreading of fringe theories about Central Asian history, Indo-European culture, Turkic peoples and related subjects, which is done through tendentious misreprentation of sources, personal attacks, edit warring and sockpuppetry. Primary topics of focus are racial theories, genetics and linguistics, especially etymology. His primary agenda is to push a Turkic origin of various ancient cultures and peoples." Reminds you of someone? Per the link, one of their targeted areas are
Gutian people, just like BaharatlıCheetos2.0
[14]. Tirgil34 claims "that various Iranian peoples, especially Scythians/Saka were instead of Turkic origin", just like BaharatlıCheetos2.0
[15].
HistoryofIran (
talk)
17:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I fail to see how that is relevant given the nature of this discussion. I've seen sockpuppet accounts that opened in 2024 with an original account in 2012.
Insanityclown1 (
talk)
18:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
After BaharatlıCheetos2.0's block, they suddenly went AWOL. A day after,
User:HiddenRealHistory19 (after more than one month of inactivity) appears and starts replying for BaharatlıCheetos2.0's IP by writing a pseudo-historical nationalistic rant, something which fits very well with BaharatlıCheetos2.0's edits. Can we please do a checkuser? I've added the two afromentioned users up above. --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
23:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You all keep making claims. How about I invite you all to a call on telegram or instagram and we debate this into depth? None have ever responded to me and always just say "rv, talk, pseudo". I doubt you guys even know what I am talking about because this has been censored since William Ewart Gladstone😭. My telegram brother is "Jesse Kruitman" / user" "mustafakemalataturk1923"
HiddenRealHistory19 (
talk)
03:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also no I am not spiced cheetos. But whoever he is, and since yall saying I sound like him (he sounds like me) he must be great guy whos not in love with lies like yall.
HiddenRealHistory19 (
talk)
03:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And wait what I see I am a suspect if being a sockpuppet I dont even know what that means bro. And I dont even know how wikipedia works I just edit stuff and anyone who dissagrees I challenge them for debates. I have no connection to spiced cheetos or whatsoever this is pseudo criminalital judgement. And who even are you guys? The police wikipedia detectives? Its almost like yall get paid to do this stuff.
HiddenRealHistory19 (
talk)
03:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Then why yall say its pseudo science if you do not even know the subjects I am talking about bro. You guys are the pseudo scientsists cuz yall are following a western settled "untouchable undiscussable unchangeable" agenda💀 you consider western historians as holy. While it was the west claiming everyone are Turks and Europeans descent from Turanians it were always westerners saying this. But when you hear stuff you have no knowledge about I just see random words I dont know the meaning of linking to some random ass page with some rules on it and saying I should follow those rules WP:GS or RV or "talk". Like cant yall give a human response to me? I begin to doubt wether yall are humans or just rogue AI from Klaus Schwabs imperium in Davos. Dead internet theory is back my friends!!
HiddenRealHistory19 (
talk)
03:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
you know what. I start an investigation on @
kansasbear and @
HistoryofIran + also @
Historyfan. To check if they're working for zionist elite enlisted to Wikipedia by Klaus Schwab from World Economic Forum. If any traces are found of globalist elite I will report ALL of the names above to Turkish Historian detective Research center(cuz you're all Turks.[btw quote on quote these are Gene D. Matlock his words not mine nor other Turks lmfao]).
HiddenRealHistory19 (
talk)
03:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Baharatlı stopped using their 2.0 account and started using the "sequel" account with no overlap. I wouldn't jump to an assumption of bad-faith sockpuppetry. I'd suggest just asking them to declare the (obvious) connection more publicly. No comment on the rest of the case.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Checkuser note: The BaharatlıCheetos2.0 <-> BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı connection is obvious and not itself problematic because there was clearly no intent (or effect) of deceiving anyone. If this ends up checked, it won't be because of the connection between these two accounts.
So far, all that's been presented regarding connections to other accounts amounts to "they overlap and I'm really convinced it's socking". That doesn't cut it. Socking allegations are serious, and anyone making them needs to be able to present concrete evidence in the form of
diffs to back them up. Unless someone
presents some, this case will likely find itself closed without action. --
Blablubbs (
talk)
12:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply