Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82

Js82

Js82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82/Archive.

04 March 2016

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Pinsi281 (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

Evidence presented by User:Ms Sarah Welch is at this diff (User talk:RegentsPark#Hello). regentspark (comment) 01:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I completely oppose this SPI. Wikipedia cannot operate on the whims and fancies of Sarah Welch. This SPI has been opened "on behalf of Sarah Welch", who has apparently been edit warring on the Sikhism page for months (see the message from earlier today (this diff) on her talk page by an independent editor Deluded Fan) is completely in "bad faith" and has no justification at all. All the evidence being provided is nothing but childish.

I started participating on the Sikhism page early January when I saw some constructive edits from Jujhar Pannu, and wanted to extend my support to those. These were against Sarah Welch's stated position in the past (she edit warred with Jujhar Pannu as well), and now this charge against me to get me banned. This is no grounds for conducting an SPI on me. I hope justice would be served and this SPI be dismissed without any further action.

This is all frivolous childish evidence. All the "in the same way, editing the same section of the same Sikhism article" has zero content actually, if you look into it. There is no similarity in the edits I made and any prior edits being claimed. Absolutely zero similarity. And in all humility, 2-3 months of time is enough for me to know the basic WP policies to ask Sarah Welch to stop repeatedly throwing them at my face. And I asked Sarah Welch to stop lying because she was lying. What else should I have said ? I never "attacked" any Admin, this is just another lie from her. What a farce of an "evidence".

It is amazing she has now even dragged Jujhar Pannu into this. Just goes to show what I have stated above. Jujhar Pannu added sources she does not want added, so she edit warred repeatedly with him and with me (and has been doing so with several editors for the last several months, as even Deluded Fan has stated on her own talk page earlier today here). Left with nowhere to go, she has now gone on to raise frivolous SPIs against established and long-term editors such as Jujhar Pannu as well. Please disregard and move on. Pinsi281 (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

---

04 March 2016

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Pinsi281 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jujhar.pannu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 172.56.39.126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 75.172.122.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• DeludedFan (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

After @Js82 working from many IP was blocked, @Docxx appeared which too was blocked, followed by @Wollone who too was blocked. Now @Pinsi281 has appeared, claiming he/she knows all the wikipedia policies, with "And STOP QUOTING WP:xxx, WP:yyy, I know them."

The relatively new account opened in January is editing the same article in the same way, editing the same section of the same Sikhism article, and edit warring 1, 2, 3, 4 the same way as previous already-blocked accounts and IPs did. @Pinsi281 is also personally attacking admins and editors, calling latter "liars" in the same way blocked @Js82-accounts-or-IPs did. WP:DUCK?

The IPs are listed as they are close to IPs previously linked to @Js82 etc. The @Jujhar.pannu is listed because of similar co-edits and mentions by @Pinsi281 here and here, and co-edit-warring here, here.

FWIW, admin @RegentsPark noted on March 3 2016, here that SPI "evidence looks reasonable". Joshua Jonathan made the same observation on @Pinsi281 here and here a little while ago on the talk page of Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I completely oppose this SPI. Wikipedia cannot operate on the whims and fancies of Sarah Welch. This SPI, opened by Sarah Welch, who has apparently been edit warring on the Sikhism page for months (see the message from earlier today (this diff) on her talk page by an independent editor Deluded Fan) is completely in "bad faith" and has no justification at all. All the evidence being provided is nothing but childish.

I started participating on the Sikhism page in January when I saw some constructive edits from Jujhar Pannu, and wanted to extend my support to those. These were against Sarah Welch's stated position in the past (she edit warred with Jujhar Pannu as well), and now this charge against me to get me banned. This is no grounds for conducting an SPI on me. I hope justice would be served and this SPI be dismissed without any further action.

This is all frivolous childish evidence. All the "in the same way, editing the same section of the same Sikhism article" has zero content actually, if you look into it. There is no similarity in the edits I made and any prior edits being claimed. Absolutely zero similarity. And in all humility, 2-3 months of time is enough for me to know the basic WP policies to ask Sarah Welch to stop repeatedly throwing them at my face. And I asked Sarah Welch to stop lying because she was lying. What else should I have said ? I never "attacked" any Admin, this is just another lie from her. What a farce of an "evidence".

It is amazing she has now even dragged Jujhar Pannu into this. Just goes to show what I have stated above. Jujhar Pannu added sources she does not want added, so she edit warred repeatedly with him and with me (and has been doing so with several editors for the last several months, as even Deluded Fan has stated on her own talk page earlier today here). Left with nowhere to go, she has now gone on to raise frivolous SPIs against established and long-term editors such as Jujhar Pannu as well. Please disregard and move on. Pinsi281 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: You are not 2-3 months old account. Your account is less than 2 months old, with your first edit on January 8 2016. To quote, @Joshua Jonathan note on you, on February 21 2016..... "STOP LYING. And STOP QUOTING WP:xxx, WP:yyy, I know them." Same capitals, same text. And remarkable, that a six week old account, that made a bare 42 edits, knows those policies. More here Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pinsi281: Please do not delete my comments/replies/additional evidence as you did here, or change your comments if I have replied to you, on this case file page. That is a violation of editing guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't edit my comments. I did not even see you had commented (since it happened in close succession), so it was taken out inadvertently. I have left it in here. Now don't start another one of your wars here, of all places, for heaven's sake.

As for the "evidence", another childish remark from the editor. So my account is as old as the day I make my first edit ? Just think again.

Please disregard this frivolous attempt from Sarah Welch to malign and attack me in "bad faith" and move on. And to repeat, yes, I am smart enough to learn the basic WP policies in a week, and we are talking months here. And I am free to ask you to stop quoting WP:xxx WP:yyy in my face in every message, as you have been doing. This comment made by me is your "evidence" for SPI ? Just stop.

Pinsi281 (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Adding DeludedFan to the list as well. The account seems to always crop up at the "right" time. [1] [2] [3] Endorse current evidence and a check for sleepers. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This is getting insane. No way this SPI deserves to go any further. There is simply no evidence. Please dismiss already. Pinsi281 (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

---