Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khvalamde/Archive

18 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Kind of a quacking sock of User:Khvalamde. IP geolocates to Bangkok, which is Khvalamde's self-declared location, and in the past when I have raised problems with his behaviour, he has responded by going to ANI and raising incidents against me (which have never held water). It would not surprise me that, with that having failed, his next move would be to log out and vandalise my pages.—Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It seems rather clear that Khvalamde does not fully click with the fact that some things make people tick on Wikipedia, and that he should refrain from doing so. But by the same token, is it not overkill to open SPI on the basis of a single edit from a single anon account? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain it's him, so no, I don't think so. I recently raised more points about his recent behaviour, and I fully expected some kind of 'retaliation' (as that's what's always happened previously), so this is pretty clear-cut to me. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, and is this is the wisest use of Wikipedia's limited resources? I can't see what you hope to achieve through this 'investigation', when all you have is a single edit from an anon (which, even if found to support your suspicion, is unlikely to be blocked for a long period of time). As to blocking the master account, even if it is blocked, I wonder as to how preventative that would be (given his recent contributions from that account, it seems he is not going to edit from that account much longer)? You also mention you expected some kind of 'retaliation' - yet you haven't exactly supplied the evidence of where that has happened previously, have you? In other words, there seems to be a lot lacking here; if there wasn't, perhaps these questions would not arise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have to agree with Ncmvocalist - we're not going to issue blocks for that one edit, even if it was somehow confirmed to be Khvalamde. In any case, per this, it appears that the user has retired. I'm closing this with no prejudice against opening another case if one is warranted in the future. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)