Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KarMarBar12/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The user KarMarBar12 vandalized today the article of Polo Morín, after a while was blocked, then appears this ip defending the same point of view KarMarBar12. ''' Philip J Fry  Talk  Tag me! ''' 05:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * CheckUser has been requested by case filer, but CU will likely not link IP to sock master. --JustBerry (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - We can't use CU to connect IPs and accounts. GABgab 07:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP address seems to be shared with editors who make constructive edits, and the article is semi-protected now, anyway. However, I did spot a duck,, who I'll indefinitely block.  I'll also extend KarMarBar12's current block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Evidence
 * Diff 1
 * Diff 2 JustBerry (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * (block extending admin) (unblock request reviewing admin)
 * Cyberduck icon.png Ducks still quacking. --JustBerry (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I got distracted by other stuff. I guess I'd be curious to hear what Yamla would like to do about this; I tried to be lenient earlier because the socks were complaining about a potential BLP violation, though they didn't know the correct lingo. It's obvious this more sock/meat puppetry, but I don't know if my tack of leniency is right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it may be best to leave things as they are now unless there are further violations of WP:SOCK. If there are, I'd extend the block to an indefinite block. I don't believe there's a WP:BLP issue here, but please note that I don't speak Spanish, nor do I have any idea who the article subject is. If there is a BLP issue (that is, if there's any significant doubt in the reliable sources as to whether the subject was indeed claiming what the other reliable sources are saying he claimed), I'd suggest unblocking the user with a strict warning against further socking. Again, though, my understanding is there's no doubt in the reliable sources as to what was claimed. --Yamla (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)