Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Varlaam/Archive

13 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Keep your fork, there's pie is a self-admitted sockpuppet (see userpage), which is being used to create an illusion of support on Talk:Easter Rising. The comment of "Maybe he's been blocked before and warned for other stuff, but underneath it all he does have a point, no?" gives no indication they are in fact the same editor, quite the opposite in fact. There's this crossover of articles which is quite telling given Keep your fork, there's pie only has 121 total edits, and the fact Keep your fork, there's pie's first edit in over two weeks just happens to be in support of Varlaam under 80 minutes after Varlaam's original post, the ducks are quacking very loudly. 2 lines of K 303  20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Further to Dennis's comment below, I do seem to recall at some point in the past the sockpuppetry policy allowing alternate accounts to edit in uncontroversial areas separate from the main account, and I'm unsure how those accounts would be affected by any change in the policy. However WP:ILLEGIT point 1 (and point 4 for that matter as well) is quite clear and has been in the policy as long as I can remember, you can't use a sock to create an illusion of support which is exactly what the diff is doing. 2 lines of K  303  20:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Once they edit the same article, now they become good guy/bad guy accounts, by their own definition. In addition to the support aspect, I would add. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  20:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

This is silly. I've been editing here for years! I've always admitted to being a sockpuppet and have never taken part in any votes. Still haven't. An admin asked me to participate in a discussion at Talk:Territorial evolution of Canada and I figured while I was at it I would put in my two cents at another discussion that was on my watchlist. (An article which I have never edited, by the way!) I just said maybe we should listen to what he's saying instead of attacking him over his block history. Pretty sure that's a permissible use of an alternate account. I'm not worried about a checkuser, though. I'm not that guy. Keep your fork, there&#39;s pie (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - His rationale for the second account (which he doesn't name) does seem to fly in the face of policy. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  20:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On hold per a request on my talk page. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is anything going to happen here? T. Canens (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we've waited long enough. The rationale for the secondary account is completely legitimate, and editors are entitled to use secondary accounts to edit controversial topics. A problem would arise only if the master and secondary accounts came to edit the same page, and I agree that there is some basis to suspect that such is the case. Nevertheless, technical evidence suggests that the cross-over was a mere coincidence: the named accounts are technically to be related (with some miles and an international border between them). Moreover, I see from my checks who the actual operator is, and am completely convinced that the accounts are ❌.  AGK  [•] 07:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)