Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jpaolin/Archive

30 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Background: just over a week ago, Keelsh01 wanted some changes made to Template:Infobox building, so made a protected edit request, which. A few days later, they in a new section. The case: 36 minutes after that second request was completed, BethannRichter ; Keelsh01 then, but signed it as BethannRichter (this goes against WP:SIGFORGE), and then. Very soon, Jpaolin (who has made few other edits) arrived to. All this occurred before the RfC. 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. Red rose64 (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 about adding an additional parameter about week ago and got no responses. I then posted in two different associated project pages asking if editors, who are knowledgeable about the construction process, could join the discussion. I further asked two users, Jpaolin and BethannRichter, to offer their expertise in the talk page. They are experts within the building process and I knew they could provide reliable information regarding why an addition construction_management parameter is important. They merely contributed to the discussion and I don't see how this could be deemed unethical. Furthermore, the only reason I moved BethannRichter comment was so that the discussion could be more easily understood within one section for any newcoming editors to understand. If i'm not mistaken, Wikipedia is all about working together and collaborative effort, and a lot of current, progressive information will not progress unless people work together. All I am asking for is a necessary additional parameter 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)
 * You posted a question at Template talk:Infobox building, 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 and . 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 . 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? -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 canvass users with a similar viewpoint as you to a discussion, they are treated the same as if they were your sockpuppets, because from our point of view it is impossible to distinguish between the two. See meatpuppetry. Conifer (talk ) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted my question in 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 consensus. Conifer (talk ) 07:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * the signature forging accusation is unfounded and untrue. @BethannRichter added said comment in this post but then @Keelsh01 moved it to another section after his initial request was denied. Please be careful when openly accusing and make sure these are founded. Be reminded of WP:AGF. I suspect @Keelsh01 is probably unfamiliar with Wikipedia and is simply trying his best, WP:DONOTBITE. Leave me out of this, just wanted to point the signature thing only. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Please, compare those three accounts.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * and are ✅. Technically speaking, BethannRichter is . From what I can gather, it seems very likely that it's 3 different individuals working together.  Mike V • Talk 04:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppetry and conflict of interest are apparent per this., and  please do not participate in canvassing or meatpuppetry again. Because you are new, we will assume 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.