Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captainclegg/Archive

Report date March 9 2009, 01:32 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Sandy Georgia (Talk)
 * Similar and unusual edit summaries, with four tildes and very often with identical wording
 * Captainclegg
 * Crowley666
 * Biggusdikus
 * Care in the community
 * Similar user page creation:
 * Captainclegg
 * Crowley666
 * Biggusdikus
 * Careinthecommunity
 * All participating in discussion at Talk:Hey Jude and Sinden articles, but almost no other articles
 * Similar article participation:
 * Hey Jude
 * Marc Sinden
 * Seven Deadly Sins Four Deadly Sinners
 * Similar editing time and pattern per wikichecker
 * All four weighing in on one image deletion (see below).


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I had been in the thick of talk page debates with them at Hey Jude, where the users were advocating the inclusion of material about how Marc Sinden appears in the song's music video. While it was aggravating from my perspective, I just figured Marc Sinden has some very vocal fans. Then I noticed they had similar, at times identical edit summaries on the article (the key clue was they all signed their edit summaries with the four tildes, even though they don't produce anything in that field). Looking through histories, I saw similar edit patterns. One of the most notable was the edit history for Yakima Canutt (a bit out of the range of mutual interest in Marc Sinden subjects), where two of the accounts use the exact same edit summaries. It's one thing if it's just a bunch of editors with very similar interests; it's quite another if one user has been using sock puppets to influence talk page consensus and deletion discussions (they always agree with each other). WesleyDodds (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Images and media for deletion/2008 December 21


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * it appears there was vote stacking, endorsing CU request to confirm.  MBisanz  talk 08:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ ==  ==  ==, no comment on the IP --  lucasbfr  talk 13:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

All the confirmed accounts (even the master) are now blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. -- Kanonkas : Talk  19:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Rdm2376
All these accounts are solely concerned with Marc Sinden and closely related subjects. I think the behavioral evidence is probably enough to block the IP and the listed account, however I think a checkuser is warranted to be sure of the sockmaster. Captainclegg has been previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts and if proven, would warrant an indef block. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
CaptainClegg has appealed his recent ban. I oppose lifting the ban. His sock behavior before the first block was a deliberate attempt to sway consensus, and evidently designed to increase the visibility of Captainclegg's topic of interest, Marc Sinden. Before lifting the ban, someone should investigate if there is a COI issue here. (See edit comment associated with this edit. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with John; it's clear to many editors who've taken on this Sinden-focused entity that the subject is far too close to home (Finchley by the way, not 'The Bishop's Avenue'!). Especially worrying is this: [], most of which have been puffed by Clegg or past and present Clegg socks of one type or another. This ban should *never* be lifted (although my informed guess is that it'll probably be safe to unblock after Marc Sinden eventually departs this life), and editors should keep a keen eye on all Sinden-related articles; not least because there's now a lot of work required in removing all those spurious references and myriad puffery.... Little grape (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Kevin (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike 03:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ (through the IP listed above) that is also . It is  that he is also, but not confirmed - Parnathus uses a different (although similar) computer, but same ISP and location, and there is no overlap in timing. Parnathus, however, is also ✅ to be , so either way they're both guilty. I leave it to others to determine if we're dealing with one or two people here. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 07:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Thanks Hersfold. In my opinion the evidence is strong enough to state that all the accounts listed here are the same person. I've blocked and tagged all accounts, and seeing as User:Captainclegg was already on a second chance for sockpuppetry I have also blocked this account indef. Kevin (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)