Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cgrisham12/Archive

13 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Possible duck. Cgrisham created a page called "Cami Greatrex", the contents being "A chotch". (attack page...?) Meanwhile, Kwilk did the inverse, he created a page called "Chotch", the contents being "Cami Greatrex". Now here's the contents of Chotch's talkpage;

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Kwilk444 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

She's a chotch

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Cgrisham12 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC) it's a true statement Yep. Either meat puppetry or duck puppetry. (I think both should be VOA-blocked anyway?) Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 18:58, 13 April 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 can't see deleted edits, but if 's comments are true, both should be blocked as vandalism-only accounts. I believe no investigation is necessary in this case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * True and done. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)