Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobkarlz/Archive

26 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The first user was replacing dead links with spam. I blocked them. No we have a new user replacing dead links with spam in the same article. The links eventually lead you to the same spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've blocked the second account. As far as I'm concerned, this should be block-indef-on-sight and blacklist the site.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am wondering if a CU will pull up dozens of other accounts they are using for the same thing? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's best for a checkuser to make sure that all of the accounts have been unearthed. Mike V • Talk 03:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The two accounts are ❌, and there are no other accounts connected with either of them. How very dull. Yunshui 雲 水 12:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Now, do we agree that this is a sockpuppet of Bobkarlz? Both accounts made identical edit to the same article . They did not make any other edit except inserting a spam link to articles (the same spam link). .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hum. Maybe they change their IP on every edit. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Yunshui checked, but it's possible that there are proxies at use. As they say, checkuser isn't pixie dust and the behavioral evidence here is more than sufficient. I think it's best to just continue to keep an eye out for these edits and block the accounts. Mike V • Talk 17:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)