Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gregory Clegg/Archive

Report date May 7 2009, 06:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

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, these talk page comments here , this admin's talk page      - 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)
 * Evidence submitted by JCutter (talk)


 * 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)

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)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by JCutter (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC) "Other reason" requires some sort of explanation that justifies CU, and none has been provided. Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * 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)

Requested by Cunard (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The code letters are D and E. An hour after Melchiord was blocked 24 hours for violating 3RR on Hugh Wilson, Gregory Clegg began reverting to the content that Melchiord wanted. The users have also been votestacking at Articles for deletion/Delboy (musician). See this vote by Gregory Clegg and and this vote by Melchiord. Both accounts also edit during the same time period. Cunard (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the evidence provided is reasonable enough to perform a check. Icestorm815 •  Talk  23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC) All accounts blocked and tagged. Icestorm815 •  Talk  00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅ - technical evidence says they are the same user. -- Versa  geek  23:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)  Syn  ergy 01:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 14 2009, 05:01 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets



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)
 * Evidence submitted by Cunard
 * Per the comments below and per my own research, is definitely not a sock, so I've struck out their username from the suspected sockpuppets list. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Cunard for more relevant context to this case. Cunard (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Evidence Submitted by Unionhawk


 * 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)

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)


 * Comments by other users
 * It's not that you want to keep them, it's that you make the exact same arguements as Gregory Clegg, and your only 61 contributions status doesn't help your cause.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 11:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Careful, Unionhawk. We don't want to instruct people to sock more effectively. – Quadell (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point... Technically, if he read WP:SOCK, he could get just that information.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 12:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is unlikely that is a sockpuppet. The edit patterns, article focus and behavior are strongly indicative of a new user. --NrDg 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is likely that is a sock. Only edits were to the deletion discussion and this  modification to a comment by confirmed sock of, . Also similar patterns of writing. --NrDg 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is likely that is a sock. In addition to above note  and  for similarities of behavior and belief. --NrDg 17:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * looks to be a random IP reader of the article List of soft rock musicians who chose to comment at the AfD discussion linked to on the article page. IMO not an IPsock. --NrDg 17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * does have the contribution pattern of a newbie, unlike, who essentially went straight to AfD. Dknight, on the other hand, started with disney channel stuff, asked for not-deletion on his talk page, but never voted in an AfD discussion. I removed from the sock list, since I basically accused him for saying "Keep per above," which I did a lot myself.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would just keep an eye on . His only edits being editing comments of confirmed socks make him suspicious, but sock or no, he was at least in violation of WP:NOTYOURS for editing comments that were (provided he's not a sock) not his. --Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC) See evidence above--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, thinking about it, 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)

Requested by Cunard (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * - Evidence to suggest possible sockpuppetry and vote stacking. Tiptoety  talk 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RFCU on concerns about Articles for deletion/Delboy (musician) alone is not possible: the vote is still ongoing. For now I am not convinced these might be the same user (I see no contribution overlap nor vote stacking)., unless further evidence is presented. -- Luk  talk 08:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only checked DunkinDonutBoy for he is blocked as a sockpuppet already. --  Luk  talk 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ that ==  ==.
 * It is that  is related to the above (different ISP).
 * I have no reason to believe the IP is anything else than someone passing by and commenting in the discussion.

Any comment about Huboi, Dknight192, and 216.66.226.156 ? Icestorm815 •  Talk  04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Luk has indicated off-wiki that this case is still . Tiptoety  talk 04:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Luk  talk 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

 Syn  ergy 19:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Accounts blocked and tagged (with the exception of Huboi). Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)