Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpeedyLA/Archive

User:SpeedyLA

 * }}

Report date February 3 2009, 08:24 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Eustress (talk)

I hope this is all just a coincidence, but I believe the situation at least merits an investigation. User:SpeedyLA began editing a few days ago (06:54, 28 January 2009) and the user's contributions have all been with regards to the Criticism section of the same article. The user has worked to remove an image on the page or to replace it with one comparable in scope. User:Jmundo may or may not be the owner of the suspected sock puppet, simply because he is sympathetic to Speedy's case and has a similar writing style (review the edit war), but in any case, it would be wise to checkuser Speedy against the IP addresses of all other editors if possible, as the behavioral evidence alone is suggestive but not conclusive. --Eustress (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that Eustress didn't take time to look at [my contributions]. I found this article in my recent changes patrol, where I reverted Speedy, 1. I decided to put this article in my watchlist as I do with articles I find controversy and vandalism 1 2. I also have an interest in the proper use of images, for example, the use of a picture of Hitler in the Chinese history article 1,. I also been active in many AfD s and talk pages discussion where I was more involved than this one, 3, 4, 5] and have never engage in any dubious practices. Finally, the image I deleted from the article was uploaded by Eustress .--J.Mundo (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Well all I can say is simply what anyone who checks this will see for themselves. I am not the same person as Jmundo. A to why this has been my only attempted edit I'll explain, though I feel my personal motivation is ultimately irrelevant. Firstly, I have used wikipedia for some time as I've wanted to look up information now and then. I have never felt the need to edit anything before due to the quality of wikipedia content. However, while looking up information I stumbled upon an image that was in need of editing. I have already explained in the discussion of the article that the image inaccurately portrays the event it is meant to display. The event was covered by the LA times and in there coverage it is made very clear that there was a sizable protest (not just one guy with a sign) that shut down wilshire blvd for several hours with a large police presence. Furthermore, it appeared as though the selection of the image was made with bias in favor of the church as the vast majority of signs at the rally in question in Los Angeles deal with issues of equality, fairness, and separation of church and state. In fact, the no on 8 campaign was the official opposition to proposition 8 and there very widely distributed sign is featured prominently in the new picture. This is a more accurate portrayal of what the protesters were putting forth as their message rather than a cherry picked sign of a more extreme message. SpeedyLA (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Eustress (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC) The evidence of sockpuppetry is very thin indeed, and not sufficient to justify a CU Mayalld (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions