Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cammy892/Archive

Evidence submitted by Acather96
All users have been recently vandalizing Wiki Game. I'm selecting Grossiftd as the sockpuppeteer as this was the account registered earliest.

Grossiftd has made 5 edits, 3 to Wiki Game and 2 others,. All bar the last are vandalism. Account registered on 22:16, 9 March 2007.

Gregors was registered at 21:20 on the 10 November 2010. Only one edit, to WikiGame (vandalism)

Cammy was registered at 22:01 on the 14 December 2009. Two edits, one possibly constructive edit and the other vandalism to WikiGame

70.230.191.212 has made only one edit, vandalising WikiGame

90.197.235.166 has made 4 edits, 3 edits to Ely Community College (all vandalism) and one to WikiGame

Even though the page has a long history of vandalism, (semi prot. requested), I'm reporting the above users because the edits there making to WikiGame all seem related, and are around the same timeframe. Acather96 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - doesn't seem related behavoirally, but still could be. Clearly not enough evidence for duck blocks. IPs are looking even more unrealted behavoirally. I would say check the two other users and see if the other shows up.  DQ.alt (t)  (e)    18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - I did not do any checks, and I am not explicitly declining this request. But it seems to me that with a dozen edits among all three user accounts, this really doesn't seem like a CU case at all. If there's vandalism going on, it's vandalism...pure and simple. Socking is generally taken to mean that a user is attempting to influence things to their own point of view. I don't see how vandalism qualifies in this case; vandalism is vandalism no matter how many accounts the vandal operates. We don't need to connect accounts in order to see that, and indeed I suspect that doing so would only serve to legitimize behavior that probably should be dealt with under WP:RBI. I'm open to other interpretations, though. Frank  &#124;  talk  01:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Throwing my two cents worth into this: If a vandal gets multiple accounts, then get's vandal blocks, they are back in a few days. And yes, it would eventually be an indef block, but why waist time, when we can connect them here. On the first bit of grounds for checking of the WP:CU it says "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism...". Also there is not enough evidence to hand out duck blocks, but it's likely that these are the same users giving the edit times. The users might be going stale now...but still. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  20:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked the confirmed editors, as well as based on behavioral evidence. Nakon  08:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Renamed to oldest puppet and tagged. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  13:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)