Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto von Saxony/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Hello. The user in question, has repeatedly vandalized the page for opinion polling on the Brazilian election, to the point it needed to be protected. 

The argument was that a poll that had several red flags as to whether it was genuine or accurate enough to be included in the count ultimately resulted in the page being placed on full protection. Throughout the argument, both accounts repeatedly failed to offer any real evidence that it was a genuine poll in blatant violation of Wikipedia's standards for accurate information and ultimately resulted in both accounts insulting the people who argued that it was false.  

Ultimately, Winnie insulted admin who intervened to order the sides to stop and left a threatening message on Pablothepenguin's message wall. 

Another link of evidence is that Otto von Saxony has a history of making false edits on political pages that effectively amount to vandalism, so this fits into a pattern of behavior of adding edits to political subjects without providing evidence to show it is genuine, in very blatant violation of Wikipedia's adamance on valid information. 

On the talk page for the Brazilian election, all three users state that the poll is accurate, but have failed to provide any evidence that is indeed a valid poll, such as showing whether or not this poll had done anything else on this particular election and are instead claiming that the users who are asking for genuine evidence are lying, including the admins who ordered them to cease putting it on the page. 

Given that there is a large amount of evidence from behaviors of continually inserting false information and using similar wording to people who oppose them, to the pattern of the sock master for adding false information on political subjects, there is a very real chance that all three accounts are indeed coming from the same person. I ask that they be investigated, and if they are, that they be banned immediately. Thank you. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)) 2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

PS: The user in question is becoming increasingly hostile on the talk page. 

I ask that the admins ban the user to prevent him from becoming more hostile until a judgement is rendered on whether or not he abused multiple accounts. (2607:FEA8:7227:B323:1420:D06B:A472:255D (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC))

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I wish to write that these users all sound suspiciously similar in the kinds of arguments that they are using to justify the polls. They also do not seem to care about the the red flags that the poll has. Perhaps they should also refrain from insulting me in the future. Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * These accounts are ❌ to one another. Since they are editing on the same page, I will note that is ✅ to ; however, since there is no overlap between their editing, I'm not going to block these accounts, but will warn them about sockpuppetry.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)