Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jpaolin/Archive
Jpaolin
- Jpaolin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
30 July 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- BethannRichter (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Keelsh01 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Background: just over a week ago, Keelsh01 wanted some changes made to
WP:SIGFORGE), and then initiated an RfC. Very soon, Jpaolin (who has made few other edits) arrived to support both threads. All this occurred before the RfC was publicised by Legobot. The only way that two infrequent editors could have known about the discussion on a page which they had never edited before is if they were told to go there by Keelsh01 - or if they were the same person.
Further evidence: I also suspect that there is a strong connection because (i) both BethannRichter and Keelsh01 have been editing User:BethannRichter/sandbox and (ii) the only other page that Jpaolin has edited is Hill International - which is also the only mainspace article that has been edited by BethannRichter. As for 38.105.245.106 (who did not comment at Template talk:Infobox building) - the only pages that they've edited are the two I've just mentioned, User:BethannRichter/sandbox and Hill International. Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
]
Further evidence: I also suspect that there is a strong connection because (i) both BethannRichter and Keelsh01 have been editing User:BethannRichter/sandbox and (ii) the only other page that Jpaolin has edited is Hill International - which is also the only mainspace article that has been edited by BethannRichter. As for 38.105.245.106 (who did not comment at Template talk:Infobox building) - the only pages that they've edited are the two I've just mentioned, User:BethannRichter/sandbox and Hill International. Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Hi,I posted a question in Template: Infobox Building, a change that would improve accuracy and understanding for ALL wikipedia readers/editors. Thank you Keelsh01 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)]
- @Keelsh01: You posted a question at Template talk:Infobox building#Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2015, true; but it is untrue to say that you got no responses, since I responded. You say "I then posted in two different associated project pages" - all I can find are this edit and this edit. Of these two, the first is in a WikiProject's to-do list, which is not the place to post questions; the second is in a valid place, but it was half an hour after you had forged BethannRichter's signature. What I can't find is where you "further asked two users, Jpaolin and BethannRichter, to offer their expertise in the talk page" - where did you do that? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: My question to you is- Have you read what I have requested and the info I have to support my request? I am asking for an additional construction_manager parameter that would benefit the wikipedia community.This site is confusing to someone like me who is relatively new to it, so i apologize if my attempt to progress info was not carried out appropriately. You are mistaking my lack of standard wikipedia procedures/knowledge with having bad intentions. If i am not doing something right, I am very open to constructive criticism. However, by automatically accusing new editors like me of having bad intentions, you are discouraging us from continuing to add and advance this site. Instead, assisting us with learning the rules would be beneficial for everyone. Please read and review the nature of my request and my own evidence backing it up, as well as 3 other users consensus. Additionally, in regards to your accusation of the three users being the same person- No, we are not. However, I do personally know them and henceforth asked them to help me out because the discussion was not progressing on it's own. I do not think it is unethical to ask users to comment in a discussion. Keelsh01 (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you ]
- @Conifer: I posted my question in this edit and initiated an RfC. How can anything on a protected page ever be added to if no one contributes to the discussion? Please review the nature of my request, as well as the information I have to back it up. Furthermore, today two users added to the discussion. Assume good faith here Conifer.
- The whole point of an RfC is to encourage uninvolved and neutral editors to comment on a proposed change. Notifying other editors who you know are supportive of your proposed changes, especially though offwiki channels, is considered to be circumventing ]
- @WP:DONOTBITE. Leave me out of this, just wanted to point the signature thing only. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Please, compare those three accounts. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)- Jpaolin (talk · contribs) and Keelsh01 (talk · contribs) are
Technically indistinguishable. Technically speaking, BethannRichter is 
Possible. From what I can gather, it seems very likely that it's 3 different individuals working together. 
No comment with respect to IP address(es) Mike V • Talk 04:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC) - good faith and end this case with a warning only. Your !votes should be discounted in the RfC such as to not derail it. Closing.]
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
