Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gregory Clegg/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Gregory Clegg

Report date May 7 2009, 06:39 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by JCutter (talk)

If not sock then multiple editors acting in collusion. Many PROD/CSD comments where they both seem to be "voting", including all of this AFD [1], these talk page comments here [2], this admin's talk page [3] - also some past comments about other potential socks "→Suspected sock - 208.120.69.124 - Warning" - which was deleted from their talk pages without comment. JCutter (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

You're dreaming. "Many" pages? LOL Try one page. I guess I must also be Ross or whoever the third guy was too right?

As for the other "sock" - I removed the comment from my page to clean it up. I posted a couple of times on Wiki before having a registered account, and then kept posting on the same subject under my newly registered login. Pretty simple scenario. --Melchiord (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

The edits by these users are consistent with sockpuppets. Special:Contributions/Gregory_Clegg shows a first edit !voting in an AFD that Melchiord was heavily involved in. All Gregory Clegg's other edits were to support Melchiord's positions or complain about Melchiord's block. The users use the same manner of speaking, same spelling errors, both routinely forget to sign, both heavily involved in edit warring, etc. – Quadell (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests

{{RFCU|F|No2ndletter|Decline}}    Requested by JCutter (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)  Clerk declined "Other reason" requires some sort of explanation that justifies CU, and none has been provided. Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry - I thought the explanation I provided in the evidence field of three unrelated articles and three essentially identical responses from them would be the justification (and it seems like CU is the only real way to verify SOCK). Please let me know if there is any other evidence or justification required. Thanks. JCutter (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: D + E (3RR using socks and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Cunard (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed I think the evidence provided is reasonable enough to perform a check. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: All accounts blocked and tagged. Icestorm815 • Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Confirmed - technical evidence says they are the same user. -- Versageek 23:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Synergy 01:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 14 2009, 05:01 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Cunard

DunkinDonutBoy has votestacked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delboy (musician). This is the same pattern as the votestacking done by Gregory Clegg and Melchiord at the same AfD. Both Gregory Clegg and Melchiord have been blocked for sockpuppetry. DDB and Dknight192 have both been edit warring on List of Disney Channel Series. Cunard (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence Submitted by Unionhawk

Huboi (talk · contribs) looks most like a sock with this diff; It's like he wanted to re-validate Melchiord's point by un-striking it. this !vote matches up with Melchiord and Gregory Clegg's !voting pattern.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Why does anyone who votes to keep an article have to be Gregory Clegg?

Cunard you said the burden of proof is on the accuser? Why am I being accused just because I agree with people who want to keep articles? Please remove this libelous and unfounded accusation.--DunkinDonutBoy (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, This is Dknight192 and I'm confused I'm new to Wikpedia and have just made a few edits and felt that one of them being deleted was wrong when the article was correct. However, I respect NrDg for deleting the article because he felt it was nessassary and thats fine. I do not believe it is nessarssay to bring it this far (although I do not know what a Sockpuppetry is so please will someone inform me) I'm really sorry if I've done anything bad I really didnjt know I did. Thankyou in advance Dknight192 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dknight192 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
  • Actually, thinking about it, Huboi (talk · contribs) has not made any defense at all, unlike DunkinDonutBoy and Melchiord did. If his edits become disruptive, you can always block him for another reason, but they aren't, as of yet, disruptive nor charactiristic of Gregory Clegg.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 23:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + C (Community ban/sanction evasion and vote stacking affecting outcome)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Cunard (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Question: Any comment about Huboi, Dknight192, and 216.66.226.156 ? Icestorm815 • Talk 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luk has indicated off-wiki that this case is still  In progress. Tiptoety talk 04:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Completed -- Luk talk 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Synergy 19:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gregory_Clegg/Archive&oldid=1084293941"