Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdechambeau/Archive
Jdechambeau
- Jdechambeau (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
19 August 2011
[edit]- Suspected sockpuppets
- Lanaflan (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.
Jdechambeau created article which was nominated for speedy. Jdechambeau contested speedy here [1] and shortly thereafter the anon IP also contested the speedy here (as its only edit on Wikipedia): [2]. Per WP:DUCK appears to be a sock. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Additional spa account Lanaflan, now commenting as well on a related article also created by Jdechambeau [3]: [4] in a manner similar to Jdechambeau's comment here [5]. I also note that Jdechambeau has admitted a conflict of interest with this diff: [6]. This latest addition appears to be a meat, not a sock, most likely. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
[edit]Cute, I look forward to an admin confirming that this is not the case. --Jdechambeau (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
As someone who has given up bothering to edit anything on Wikipedia I must say it is mindnumbing dull cases like this which caused my departure. I don't see why anyone new to wikipedia would bother to edit anything when met with such hostility. Are you going to accuse me of sock puppetry as well? --74.198.9.29 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)— 74.198.9.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- No kidding, and that this case is being raised by a user who starts his talk page with "Be polite, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks, and Be welcoming." We're 0 for 4 here. --Jdechambeau (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]- The IP didn't do anything against policy. It could have been a mistaken logged out edit, but i'm not going to comment on that possibility to maintain the users privacy. The second account does look to be a meat per admission, I think were done here. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)