Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fortheloveofbacon/Archive

01 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

apparent confession (?) Nobody Ent 11:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' User:Fortheloveofbacon claimed in this post that the account User:RelevantUsername was his. The diff is taken from User:MuZemike's talk page. User:Fortheloveofbacon claims that Mike "inappropriately blocked an account of mine" and asks Mike to direct him to "any sort of discussion relating to [his] block of User:RelevantUsername". Bacon says the RelevantUsername account is his, that makes him a sockpuppet under the WP:SOCK rules. Since the RelevantUsername account was blocked for "abusing multiple accounts", that means we are looking at a long-term sockpuppet (a few names spring to mind there).

Fortheloveofbacon was the subject of a previous SPI (located here), in which a connection between Bacon and User:ChildofMidnight was claimed. While no evidence was available (the CU said everything was stale), the account was indef blocked per WP:DUCK. ArbCom was contacted by the user by email and they "determined that [it was] likely not ChildOfMidnight on a couple factors". Though User:Hersfold did note that "given what was available here at the time [he didn't] think the block was inappropriate".

The current behavior of the user on my talk page and User:Risker's, along with the admission of MuZemike's talk page, along with a previous SPI and indef block per DUCK put all together and I am hearing the same quackin' that everyone heard at the previous SPI. Time to reload and start shootin'. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 12:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have notified User:Hersfold, User:MuZemike, and User:Risker of this SPI per my statements above. To my knowledge, User:ChildofMidnight is still banned and hence was not notified. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 12:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Fortheloveofbacon has been notified of this SPI per policy. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 12:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Declared alternate accounts are not sockpuppets, they're alternate accounts. This user did not appear to be ChildofMidnight; simply liking bacon is not enough. ChildofMidnight was banned because of behaviour, and there is no evidence of similar behaviour patterns in this new user account.  Please stop tagging this, NeutralHomer.  Risker (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Forthelovebacon claims the RelevantUsername account. As far as I can tell, that's the long and short of it. Any discussion of whether the block was appropriate or not is not a matter for SPI. I'll mark this for close. TN X Man  14:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)