- Suspected sockpuppets
- NrDg ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Who_then_was_a_gentleman%3F ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- 7 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by DunkinDonutBoy
Cunard/NrDg showed identical motivations and poor spirit in making accusations against me and another guy. If not the same user then they teaming up. Cunard's sustained reaction to my points of view on Delboy and NrDg articles showed unusual emotional and vindictive reaction for an objective person not related to accused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gregory_Clegg
User 7 claims knowledge of Cunard's personal history in his comment below. Also, they both votestacked Delboy delete discussion with identical positions and Gregory Clegg sockpuppet investigations. Note user 7 recently changed identity from JCutter.
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- I have exactly one alternative account as permitted by policy. This is documented on my user page. -- NrDg 13:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by other users
Non-good faith revenge claim against Cunard for his SPI request. Not supported by any evidence. 7 talk | Δ | 05:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Further, code E below is invalid as Cunard has never been banned or sanctioned. 7 talk | Δ | 05:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, Mr #7 Neither have I been banned or sanctioned, yet I have a code E. And I wouldn't call his accusation of me 'in good faith'. Maybe you his sockpuppet too?-- DunkinDonutBoy ( talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- You have missed the point. Gregory Clegg is a confirmed sockpuppeteer and has been blocked, and Cunard has listed you as a potential new sockpuppet of Gregory Clegg to circumvent community sanctions. Neither of the people you have listed for SPI here have been sanctioned so code E below is invalid. Please try to avoid commenting on your case inside this investigation. 7 talk | Δ | 06:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- His creation of my case is evidence man.-- DunkinDonutBoy ( talk) 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is completely ridiculous, and furthermore it violates WP:CIVIL as a "ill-considered accusation of impropriety". Spitfire Tally-ho! 07:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
(←)Agreed. Uncivil, disruptive request by a blocked suspected sock puppet. No evidence whatsoever of sockpuppetry by any of the accused parties, only the accusing party.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is a waste of everyone's time. An article was in AfD, Cunard rightfully noted that there is good evidence to support that DunkinDonutBoy MAY be a sockpuppet. After that note was made, DunkinDonutBoy preceded to take the argument to Cunard's talk page. After I commented at the AfD, DDB also took the discussion to my talk page. He may have done this with every person who commented. This is purely a vindictive move by DDB and deserves some sort of reprimand. OlYeller Talktome 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request – code letter: E + C (Community ban/sanction evasion and vote stacking affecting outcome)
- Current status –
Declined, the reason can be found below. Requested by
DunkinDonutBoy (
talk)
05:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Additional information needed: Could you please provide more evidence via
diffs to support your claim? Thank you,
Tiptoety
talk
06:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
-
Clerk declined. Disruptive report by a blocked sock puppet. --
Kanonkas :
Talk
09:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
-- Kanonkas : Talk 14:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- NrDg ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Who_then_was_a_gentleman%3F ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- 7 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by DunkinDonutBoy
Cunard/NrDg showed identical motivations and poor spirit in making accusations against me and another guy. If not the same user then they teaming up. Cunard's sustained reaction to my points of view on Delboy and NrDg articles showed unusual emotional and vindictive reaction for an objective person not related to accused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gregory_Clegg
User 7 claims knowledge of Cunard's personal history in his comment below. Also, they both votestacked Delboy delete discussion with identical positions and Gregory Clegg sockpuppet investigations. Note user 7 recently changed identity from JCutter.
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- I have exactly one alternative account as permitted by policy. This is documented on my user page. -- NrDg 13:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by other users
Non-good faith revenge claim against Cunard for his SPI request. Not supported by any evidence. 7 talk | Δ | 05:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Further, code E below is invalid as Cunard has never been banned or sanctioned. 7 talk | Δ | 05:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, Mr #7 Neither have I been banned or sanctioned, yet I have a code E. And I wouldn't call his accusation of me 'in good faith'. Maybe you his sockpuppet too?-- DunkinDonutBoy ( talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- You have missed the point. Gregory Clegg is a confirmed sockpuppeteer and has been blocked, and Cunard has listed you as a potential new sockpuppet of Gregory Clegg to circumvent community sanctions. Neither of the people you have listed for SPI here have been sanctioned so code E below is invalid. Please try to avoid commenting on your case inside this investigation. 7 talk | Δ | 06:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- His creation of my case is evidence man.-- DunkinDonutBoy ( talk) 06:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is completely ridiculous, and furthermore it violates WP:CIVIL as a "ill-considered accusation of impropriety". Spitfire Tally-ho! 07:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
(←)Agreed. Uncivil, disruptive request by a blocked suspected sock puppet. No evidence whatsoever of sockpuppetry by any of the accused parties, only the accusing party.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is a waste of everyone's time. An article was in AfD, Cunard rightfully noted that there is good evidence to support that DunkinDonutBoy MAY be a sockpuppet. After that note was made, DunkinDonutBoy preceded to take the argument to Cunard's talk page. After I commented at the AfD, DDB also took the discussion to my talk page. He may have done this with every person who commented. This is purely a vindictive move by DDB and deserves some sort of reprimand. OlYeller Talktome 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request – code letter: E + C (Community ban/sanction evasion and vote stacking affecting outcome)
- Current status –
Declined, the reason can be found below. Requested by
DunkinDonutBoy (
talk)
05:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Additional information needed: Could you please provide more evidence via
diffs to support your claim? Thank you,
Tiptoety
talk
06:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
-
Clerk declined. Disruptive report by a blocked sock puppet. --
Kanonkas :
Talk
09:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
|
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
-- Kanonkas : Talk 14:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)