Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the
read this
for detailed instructions.

User:Dereks1x

Suspected sockpuppeteer

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log
)

Suspected sockpuppets

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log
)
DelloJello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TL500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

· j e r s y k o talk · 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
Comments

I am making this report because I suspect, but am by no means certain, that Dereks1x is using sockpuppets to attempt to gain advantages in content disputes. The alleged socks have advanced positions remarkably similar to Dereks1x's on relevant talk pages while most other editors that have participated in the relevant discussions have reached opposite conclusions. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________

New evidence (presented by accused)
  • See chart near the end (on top of conclusion).
  • RE: Edwards: Three of four users involvement were very, very minimal and three of them never wrote anything on the actual article, which is what readers look at.
  • RE: Obama: But one of them never had ANY contact at all with Obama and two of them have very minor contact with the topic but only on the talk page, not on the actual article. Only one of them voted once for one of the dozen topics, the other three NEVER voted. For the remainder of the voting, none of the users ever voted.
  • RE: Calvert DeForest was on all the network news and on the internet because he just died. Millions of people knew the guy.
  • The accused, Derek, has NEVER said that TL500, HumanThing, or DelloJello are in support of his views, claiming they "share opinions". In fact, they pretty much stay away from each other. There has been very, very minor crossing of paths of the accused in the case of Obama or Edwards (not both), both very public figures.
  • DelloJello just writes about Illinois topics and doesn't seem to be very political. Only once wrote on Obama and that was just the discussion page, NOT the acutal article. Nobody else among the accused EVER writes anything about Illinois.
  • HumanThing writes about Florida topics and Sarah Palin. Only had 2 minor John Edwards entries. Nobody else among the accused EVER writes about Florida.
  • This TL500 person is pretty much an airline person and stays far, far away from politics. TL500 isn't involved in any argument with ANYONE. TL500 seems to only write about airlines and very obscure aircraft. In fact, I never even heard of the VFW614! TL500's airline article are also NEVER written by any of the other accused. If there's anyone to feel sorry about, I feel sorry for TL500 because TL500 is just minding their own business and writing about aircraft that I never even heard of.

Comments from the accused, Dereks1x

  • According to the complainer's comments, he is trying to crush all discussion by accusing anyone that respectfully disagrees as being wikipedia criminals. See what jersyko says above..."alleged socks (or anyone who jersyko doesn't like) ...have reached opposite conclusions (as the people that jersyko agrees with)"

That accusation is not relevant because all editing has been done by consensus and compromise (there has been NO to "gain advantages in content disputes". For example, the part about Senator Obama's legal career 15 years ago was edited many times but has stabilized. So has the discussion about Mrs. Edwards' new cancer metastasis. So there is no evidence of disruption, just good old fashioned discussion and revisions. Wikipedia editing has been done by consensus (in the articles named, NO voting has EVER been done by the accused, Dereks1x). The accused has even publically accepted compromise language and has stated that while not in complete agreement, believes the compromise language is ok. Furthermore, the accused follows a policy of presenting slight revisions as compromise language and never, or at least recently, never just blanket deletes stuff as others have done to Derek's contributions.

  • Jersyko and Bobbelhead and Tvoz are also talkers about this. Even Ecostaz talked about cancer. They are equally suspicious if we are accusing others of being sockpuppets. The main dispute seems to be that Jersyko doesn't like Dereks1x discussion about Edwards and Obama even though everything is logical, civil, and not disruptive. Bobbelhead has written in the talk page of Lake City so why can't Bobblehead be a puppet?
  • After some private discussion, I know now who TL500 is. However, the wikipedia privacy policy and personal ethics forbid me to name the name of that person. It is not me, however.
  • However, the main accused, the Osama bin Laden of the terrorist cell is supposed to be Dereks1x. And they are wrong. Derek is no Osama. Derek is unique in writing about some very, very obscure topics and articles such as Glaxo, Surrender Document, United States, Carrasco, Parke-Davis, Dunlop Tyres, Sidley Austin, Kathryn Kuhlmann, Oral Roberts, Oral Roberts University, Commonwealth of Nations, Paula Jones, etc. NONE of the other people accused EVER write about ANY of this stuff.
  • Topic-wise, TL500 is an airliner person. HumanThing writes about Florida. DelloJello writes about Illinois and only writes about Mrs. Obama because she's from Illinois. Dereks1x writes about very unusual mix of topics all different from the other accused. The only thing that's not an unusual topic is that Derek writes about presidential candidate Edwards' wife's cancer and put more specifics about Obama's early law career 15 years ago. If he is persecuted for that, he is being persecuted for free speech, for saying very logical and non-radical things.

In summary,

  • 1. This is aggression by Jersyko because nothing bad has been done. Jersyko is just accusing people who disagrees with him (he says that all who I disagree are sockpuppets and those who agree with me are not sockpuppets...look at his accusation, under "comments"
  • Jersyko, Bobblehead, Tvoz have made some nasty comments about me regarding the John Edwards article. Maybe that's why Jersyko and her friends are mad? Are they the same person???? That's very suspicious, the link between Jersyko, Tvoz, and to some extent, Bobblehead.
  • 2. As further evidence of aggression by Jersyko, he keeps erasing evidence that I present in my defense. He's a lawyer and should know better. Suprresion of evidence and destroying evidence by Jersyko, alone, is sufficient evidence that this complaint should be dismissed.
  • 3. Jersyko should be banned as an administrator for making a very serious false accusation, which takes a long time to defend.
  • 4. People look at each others' contributions and then think "oh, I have an idea about that subject"
  • 5. Bobblehead also wrote along with Derek in the talk page of an obscure article, Lake City Seattle Washington. Why isn't Bobblehead being accused of being a sockpuppet?
  • 6. I NEVER vote in wikipedia polls regarding whether a political issue is or is not notable. So it's impossible that I'm attempting to gain influence in spinning an article.
  • 7. I've done nothing disruptive. All contributions have been sensible, not radical or communist. I have never committed any type of vandalism.
  • 8. I don't have control over others at work who may or may not be contributing.
  • 9. I contribute to some very obscure wikipedia articles that NOBODY else does. Such as Falklands Surrender Document, Glaxo, Kathryn Kulmann, Dunlop tires.
  • 10. Although I have no control over DelloJello and HumanThing and TL500, I see that they all write about completely different stuff from me. They seem polite, non-disruptive, and good people
  • 11. VERY IMPORTANT: The main dispute by the complainer is that he doesn't like Derek's quite logical and very politely written comments about being accurate as far as Mrs. Edwards' cancer and to accurately describe Obama's previous law career of 15 years ago. That's all. All very above board and legal.
  • 12. Even a supporter of Jersyko supports me when they write on Jersyko's talk page "It would only untoward if Jersyko blocked you for disruption.--Bobblehead 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)". In otherwords, it is inappropriate for me to be blocked as I have not been disruptive or sockpuppeting.
  • 13. (Now for the technicalities: Wikipedia says: Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases. The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption-----I am being accused some something which is only discouraged, not illegal. I have never voted in a poll, much less voted more than once. I can only see where one of the accused voted one time, the other never voted. No policy has been circumvented. No disruption has occurred. All of my posts, particularly the recent ones that I remember very well, have been all logical, non-disruptive, and polite. The entries of the other accused that I have seen are also logical and polite among the ones that I searched. Based on this, the accusation should be dropped)Dereks1x 00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________

Comment by Bobblehead

I can't comment on DelloJello or TL500 as I haven't done any looking into their edit history, but until today, HumanThing had only made a handful of edits outside of pages that Dereks1x had edited on and today's edits were undertaken shortly after Dereks1x noticed I had left a comment on Tvoz's talk page regarding my suspicions of Derekx1x and HumanThing being sock/meatpuppets and the edits were made in an unusual hour long break in Dereks1x's editing. A break that long in Dereks1x's edit history is generally only associated with a long edit and the talk page edit was not a long edit.

Additionally, except for a comment on Talk:Sarah Palin and an anon's talk page, when HumanThing makes an appearance on a talk page, it is invariably in support of a position Dereks1x has taken.

Given the small number of edits by HumanThing it is unlikely that they'd coincidentally hit the same articles as Dereks1x and that they'd share the same positions, particularly an article about an obscure neighborhood in

Seattle, Washington
. --Bobblehead 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


________________________________________

Refuting Bobblehead
  • Bobblehead, Tvoz, and Jersyko are the group opposed to me because they don't like the logical and NPOV statements I have written about 2 narrow topics, i.e. Obama's legal career before being Senator and Mrs. John Edwards' cancer. That's why Bobblehead has ganged up on me. Wikipedia did not contact him. He has sought out ways to attack me.
  • Bobblehead has NEVER written anything about the obscure Seattle neighborhood of Lake City until March 23 and 24 (on the talk page). This is after I wrote something. Yet he accuses me of sockpuppeting with someone else who wrote about Lake City but not himself. Based on the bad logic he gives, he should be convicted of sockpuppeting because he has written about an obscure Seattle neighborhood just like I haveDereks1x 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bobblehead has claimed residency in Seattle, Washington on his/her userpage since at least May 2006. Bobblehead's interest in such an article is obvious based on this fact. I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to whether HumanThing et al are your sockpuppets, however. I foresee this going to checkuser at this rate. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jersyko has rested his case. He is a lawyer. It is highly inappropriate for him to bring up new charges or keep presenting material.
The fact remains that merely visiting the same page is not sockpuppeting. Bobblehead never wrote anything on Lake City EVER until after I did. He is not accused of sockpuppeting. Yet some other person wrote a minimal comment and they are accused of being my sockpuppet. They could have followed me. In any case, I have not been disruptive. I cannot control them, but I haven't seen any evidence that they are disruptive either.— Preceding
talk • contribs
)
The fact remains...the other accused write about completely different things than me and vice versa. There is only a little overlap on two high profile articles (Obama and Edwards). The others' comments on those two are very minimal and not disruptive. I should not be attacked for my very NPOV contributions which my accusers don't like. — Preceding
talk • contribs
)
Comment by Tvoz

I independently formed suspicions over the last few days that these usernames were sockpuppets (or possibly meatpuppets) of User:Dereks1x, for similar reasons as Jersyko and Bobblehead, primarily because of tone and content of their edits on Barack Obama and John Edwards and their associated talk pages. It appears that these usernames are introduced into discussion to support Dereks1x's positions, using similar phrasing as Dereks1x's. Looking into it more to assist in this SSP review, I found other troubling coincidences to support this suspicion.

User: 71.212.111.238: I would like to include in this discussion the IP address 71.212.111.238 which I believe to be the IP of Dereks1x, used in editing Barack Obama (and other articles not relevant to this discussion) before Obama was semi=protected on March 17. I base this on the similarity of both usernames' edits and edit summaries to Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama regarding Punahou School. (See for instance this one and the edit summary of this one).

There's nothing wrong with going from an IP address to a username, of course - I raise this because if IP address 71.212.111.238 is Dereks1x, then the overlap between 71.212.111.238 and TL500 and Dereks1x described below becomes significant in determining if these names are sockpuppets.


User:TL500: One of the articles that Dereks1x did not mention, which he created and did a fair amount of work on, is a piece on the relatively obscure

Frank F. Ledford, Jr.
which has had a total of 29 edits by 8 editors, including Dereks1x (16 edits) and 3 editors (one of which is a Bot) who did 3 pure maintenance edits. Of the 10 remaining edits. 3 were done by TL500 and 1 was done by 71.212.111.238. edit history:


Dereks1x mentions that TL500 is an "airline person". Among the pages TL500 has edited extensively are

Delta Airlines, and Hawaiian Airlines
. Each of these users edited an article about a Boeing plane as well - one Boeing 717, the other Boeing 777.

This coinciding edit history suggests to me that these accounts may all be the same person. TL500 had little to do with the Obama pages, but came in with this which was a defense of Dereks1x's edit position, and 2 other small comments on talk.


User: HumanThing: User:HumanThing's earliest edit was at 23:01 on March 21 contributions. Five edits later (3 Calvert De Forest, 1 Lake City Seattle, 1 Ft Lauderdale), HumanThing came in to Talk:Barack Obama, having never edited the article or commented on its Talk page, with a comment that supported Dereks1x's edits using phrasing ("blanket statement that he was a civil rights lawyer" which is actually not accurate and therefore more suspicious that both are using it) and tone that is very similar to Dereks1x's own.

HumanThing's very next edit was to edit Bobblehead's talk page comment by inserting his own words (purporting to explain an edit Dereks1x had made) inside of Bobblehead's comment without any edit summary or explanation. This edit was never reverted, and I think that may be because so much was going on at the same time that no one may have noticed it - I didn't look into how it got there until this evening. I don't know if Bobblehead noticed it, as I think he might have removed it if he had. Editing other people's talk page commetns of course is not allowed, and doing so to justify Dereks1x's edit certainly raises suspicions that HumanThing and Dereks1x are one and the same. Please also note HumanThing's wording - talking about putting in a change to "make you happy" - very similar phrasing that Dereks1x has used in several edits, including the 2nd entry in this section of my talk page. I think there were other edits by Dereks1x that used similar wording, and I can look for the diffs if need be. I had not had any contact with HumanThing prior to this edit, but I had already had several difficult interactions with Dereks1x, and HumanThing's sniping comment here, targeted at me, made me think that he might be a sockpuppet of Dereks1x.

HumanThing's next edit is to John Edwards, an article that Dereks1x regularly edits, and then HumanThing's very next edit - his 9th edit since assuming this name two days prior - was a completely erroneous, baseless and false accusation against me of 3RR which was immediately rejected because the edits in question were not even reverts, let alone 3RR violations. This was just a personal attack, and he didn't even notify me that the report had been made - I didn't know about it until another editor informed me this morning. This is the report and current disposition. (I have not yet responded, as it's not clear to me if I am supposed to, since the admin already said "no violation".) This false and absurd accusation, from someone who had almost nothing to do with the editing of the article in question, nor interaction with me, raises the suspicion in my mind that HUmanThing is a sockpuppet of Dereks1x who was actively editing and with whom I had some prior interactions.

Since then, the only relevant edit by HumanThing was his jumping in to defend Dereks1x's edits on Talk:John Edwards early this morning here. Bobblehead has gone over the timing of HumanThing's comments vis-a-vis Dereks1x's.


User:DelloJello: User:DelloJello's only activity on Wikipedia was 10 edits yesterday (March 24). Here is the timeline that raises my suspicions:

Dereks1x was actively editing yesterday, from 14:23 to 17:39 - the last edit in this series was this, about Mrs. Edwards' cancer and comparing the situation to FDR.

DelloJello made 10 consecutive edits from 18:11 to 19:09 (these are the only edits DelloJello has made) - his first edit at 18:11, following Derkes1x's last one, was this about Mrs. Edwards' cancer, comparing it to JFK.

Dereks1x resumed editing at 19:21, continuing to until 1:48 this morning. Several of these edits were about Mrs. Edwards' cancer.

This is not hard proof, but the language and tone, and the break in Dereks1x's editing that coincides with DelloJello's edit burst, raise a suspicion in my mind that this is a sockpuppet situation.


Summary from Tvoz

Like Jersyko and Bobblehead, I have suspicions, and evidence - but not hard proof - of sockpuppetry. The editing of several articles has been affected by this and by Dereks1x's tendentious approach and seeming lack of understanding of many basics, as well as sometimes disruptive editing and what comes across to me as POV pushing. Tvoz | talk 08:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting Tvoz assertions
  • Tvoz, Bobblehead, and Jersyko appear to be the only users who opposed objective mention of Senator Edwards' wife's cancer and an accurate description of Senator Obama's early legal career. There is NO other significant content dispute. The original complainer, Jersyko, said (see complaint) that only sockpockets are against a position and other people are for. However, it's only that bunch of 3 who support each others' position.
  • A true assessment of entries show that the 3 complainers are politically motivated to stamp out any civil discussion. 3 of the accused have almost no involvement in the 2 political articles. Only one of them has contributed to the political articles. When he's done so, it's been logical and civil. He is not disruptive.
  • The other accused sockpuppets have either very minimal (1 or 2) or absolutely no contact with the Obama and Edwards (high profile presidential candidates) page and, in many instances, the contact was only to discuss proposals on the talk page but did not involve the actual article. These brief discussions did not involve voting, except one did vote one time for only one of more than a dozen polls there.
  • Evidence of collusion between the complainers (Tvoz, Bobblehead, Jersyko) is shown when all three write accusations on this complaint page. Wikipedia does not notify Tvoz or Bobblehead, yet they come to this obscure page to complain. This is evidence of a concerted effort to use Wikipedia to harrass me.
  • I suspect that the complainer and Bobblehead and Tvoz are in cahoots because all three have made comments here. On the other hand, I now know who TL500 is and TL500 tells me that he hasn't been notified of this complaint (so Tvoz and Bobblehead likely haven't, proving collusion)
  • As a result, this complaint should be dismissed.Dereks1x 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relayed message from TL500
  • I told TL500 of the troublemakers complaint and TL500 says this is like a nuisance lawsuit (without merit) against TL500. TL500 said to look over the accusations against the user...I have...Bobblehead doesn't make any negative comment. Tvoz says "TL500 had little to do with the Obama pages" and makes no complaint about the Edwards page (because I think TL500 has had no contact with that page and maybe only 1 contact with the Obama talk page, but not the article). The original complainer doesn't really mention TL500 except to list the user name and to mention that TL500 has made a lot of contributions to other subject.
  • Therefore, TL500 should be dropped from the complaint.
  • I have not had any discussions with the people that I suspect are JelloDello or HumanThing. Let them defend themselves. If you haven't notified them of the complaint, then they should be dropped (because the accused should have the right to defend them). I am not their representative or legal counsel. —The preceding
    talk • contribs
    ).
This is Wikipedia. This isn't a lawsuit. Please stop treating it like one. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New development by Wikipedia adminstration
Jersyko has harrassed me more than once, trying to use wikipedia to harm me. A checkuser attempt from Jersyko on me has been rejected by clearer heads at wikipedia as shown below:

Checkuser on Dereks1x by Jersyko: Rejected --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding

talk • contribs
).

And here's why it was rejected (hardly a proclamation of innocence). This SSP continues and I still suspect that you have used socks improperly. · j e r s y k o talk ·
  • Jersyko has contacted wikipedia, in effect, appealing the denial (see Jersyko's entry immediately above this sentence). The wikipedia decision to deny RFCU was affirmed, in other words, Rejected. —The preceding
    talk • contribs
    ).
Summary of data that they are complaining about (in chart form)

I counted the number:
User name (accused)---Number of revisions: John Edwards------Number of revisions: Senator Obama
..........TL500............................0 (Zero)..................................0 (Zero)
..........Dello Jello......................0 (Zero)..................................0 (Zero)
..........HumanThing....................2 (not that significant revisions)........0 (Zero)
Comment: This is hardly a smoking gun or a sign of sockpuppeting!

I also counted the number of talk page comments, which are not part of the articles.
User name (accused)---Number of revisions: Talk/John Edwards--Number of revisions: Talk/B.Obama
..........TL500........................... 0 (Zero)......................................2 (just short/polite comments)
..........Dello Jello..................... 1 (One).......................................0 (Zero)
..........Human Thing.................. 2 (Two).......................................2 (Two)
Comment: This is a very small number and not a sign of sockpuppeting, these contributions are only on the talk page and did NOT appear in the main article.

Number of votes (notable or not notable kind of voting)
User name (accused)---number votes in the 13 polls in the Talk:Senator Obama page
Dereks1x....................... 0 (ZERO) of 13 possible areas to vote
TL500.......................... 1 of 13
Dello Jello.................... 0 (ZERO)
Human Thing................. 0 (ZERO)
Comment: So only 1 vote cast even though these 4 users could have casts up to a total of 52 votes.Dereks1x 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in Support by an uninterested (uninvolved) party

I happen to currently have a suck puppetry case pending against me right now. I know how much it stinks when you work hard to make Wikipedia more neutral, and people who would rather it agreed with their views accuse you of some sort of criminal behavior. This evidence in this case is laughable. It's just wrong to accuse someone of suck puppetry just because they disagree with you. I m dude2002 01:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1)
Assume good faith instead of assuming political motivations. (2) This user commented on Dereks1x's SSP because Dereks1x commented on I m dude2002's SSP then indicated that he would like I m dude2002 to comment on his SSP. I would warn or block you both for disruption if I weren't an involved admin. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Another sock

Based on User:SLCUT841's first three edits (SLCUT841 (talk · contribs)), I think it's pretty obvious that this user is also a sock puppet of Dereks1x. I trust someone will be along shortly to examine the evidence presented here and take appropriate action. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks by TL500
  • I have received no notification from wikipedia that I am a sockpuppet. Therefore, I should be dropped from the complaint and all charges against me dismissed.
  • I have not violated any wikipedia rule. I am not a sockpuppet. Sockpuppetry is not illegal, anyway.
  • Note wikipedia rules which state: "The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption."
I only voted once in a poll about real estate, none of the others accused voted at all. Nobody has accused me of multiple voting.
I have not circumvented any Wikipedia policy. Look at the complaint language. I have not been accused on circumventing any policy. No specific policy was identified that I violated.
I have not caused any disruption. Look at the complaint language. Nobody has accused me of disruption.
Based on these 3 points alone, I should be dropped from the complaint because I am innocent.
  • Looking at my contributions, you will see that I am very civil and have not gotten into conflicts. Any discussion that I am involved with is very civil.
  • Even the accusers do not make statements that I am bad or have been disruptive.
  • There is absolutely no instances that I have been disruptive in the articles mentioned. I never had any contact with the John Edwards article or talk page. I never had any contact with the Barack Obama article. I did have minor comments on the Obama talk page but only on one day, and that was more than a week ago. As far as collaborating with the other accused sockpuppets, my comment on the Obama talk page was simply about the real estate controversy which NONE of the other accused talked about. This certainly shows that there is not a conspiracy between me and the others.
  • Am I being punished because I voted in a poll about Obama's real estate? It looks like I am being attacked just for expressing an opinion, which wasn't very radical anyway
  • What every happened to "Freedom of Speech (voting), "Assume Good Faith" and "Presumption of Innocence Until Proven Guilty"?
  • I am just interested in aviation stuff, that's all. I can't see why my little comment about Obama's real estate is causing me to be savagely attacked like this. I didn't know Wikipedia is so cruel. You are almost putting me to tears because of this. Bullies!TL500 20:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Note re TL500 by Tvoz: (1) Contrary to what TL500 says, he was in fact notified of this action on his User page on March 26 as per procedure; (2) as described above, the suspicion of sockpuppetry is based on the evidence presented of significant overlap of edits on other articles; the edit that brought these suspicions to the fore was on Talk:Barack Obama where TL500 came onto the article pages out of the blue and joined one other suspected sock/meatpuppet of Dereks1x's as the only editors agreeing with Dereks1x's lone and insistent stance in the "law firm" section on a small matter that at least 5 editors disagreed with. The style, tone, and substance of TL500's remarks here only add to my suspicions. Tvoz | talk 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal by TL500 (re--Tvoz accusations)

I now see that the note was on the user page and not the discussion page.

  • The truth of the matter is unchanged. There was no disruption. My involvement with the Obama talk page was very minimal and not in conjunction with Derek. Never did I claim that he supports my position. I can't see anywhere where he says that he has my support.
  • If there is any disruptive behavior, it is between Jersyko and Tvoz who tag team to attack me, when I've been just civil and not involved whatsoever with the John Edwards pages and not involved whatsoever with the Obama pages and just very, very minimal contact with the Obama talk page. In contrast, Tvoz and Jersyko are extremely coordinating. They tag team on attacking (being aggressive and not assuming good faith) so much so that I suspect they are either sockpuppets or same/different sex couples.
  • Furthermore, the complainers are harrassing ME, not vice versa. They filed a checkuser request and it was rejected. Yet they continue to attack me (instead of withdrawing me from the complaint after the checkuser was denied).
  • I see that Jersyko is an administrator. Jersyko's behavior, being so aggressive and showing lack of assuming good faith, puts all wikipedia administrators in a bad name (particularly since one was already in the news for being a fraud).
  • Show me where I have vandalized, show me where I've voted in multiple polls, show me where I've engaged in edit warring in Obama or Edwards' article. NONE, ZERO, NEVER, ZIPPO, NADA.
  • In short, they have failed to show that MY behavior is disruptive. As a result of MY behavior not being disruptive, I should be dropped from this complaint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TL500 (talk • contribs).
Response by JelloDello
  • 1. I freely admit that I am a sockpuppet but I am not a sockpuppet of Dereks1x. I am the sockpuppet to JelloDello and JelloDello2. This is because I forgot my password to JelloDello.
  • 2. Look at how disruptive I have been. I'm accused of being a sockpuppet on Obama's and Edwards' articles. Yet I never did anything to those pages. How can I be disruptive if I didn't do anything, let alone vandalism. Ok, I made one itty bitty comment on a talk page. So what. Those accusers never showed how it's disruptive....case closed. For vandalism, it's obvious how that's disruptive. So is multiple voting. How is a tiny, itty, bitty comment and just one comment, not a whole series of comments disruptive. Those accusers have a real problem....themselves. I am so fed up with them that I think I don't want to contribute any more. You don't need to ban DelloJello because I forgot the password. DelloJello2 is defecting to a free country where people are not charged with fake crimes.DelloJello2 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note on responses

As each of the suspected puppets have chimed in, I'm more and more convinced that they are all socks of the same master. Similar writing styles, same focus on this being some type of "trial" for "crimes", same types of rebuttals, same anger at me and anyone else who has provided evidence. I now suspect this problem is perhaps much broader than I originally thought, and suspect that there are more socks that have not been listed on this page. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting DelloJello
DelloJello admits being a sockpuppet but not a sockpuppet of me, Dereks1x. Therefore, there is no dispute by the accused (DelloJello), the accuser (Jersyko), or me (Dereks1x). However, I don't see any evidence of disruption. Therefore, take DelloJello's name off the complaint without prejudice (which means Jersyko can re-file a complaint listing DelloJello as the sockpuppeteer and DelloJello2 as the sockpuppet.Dereks1x 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refuting added accusations by Jersyko (6 lines above, 03
19, 30 March 2007)
Jersyko is an attorney so he should know better than to unethically and improperly continue to add accusations even after he has presented his case.
Isn't he happy that he made a girl cry by upsetting TL500?
Wouldn't you be upset if unjustly accused, yet Jersyko says that expressing anger means guilt.
Now Jersyko is trying to smear me by claiming that there are even more socks despite having no evidence because none exists. His current evidence is so flimsy that he would be sanctioned by the judge if he were in court. There's been no disruption or vandalism. The other accused had either nothing to do with the Obama or Edwards page or just very minimal contact with one or the other, and that was more than a week ago. If they start writing, don't blame me.
As you can see, this complaint is far longer than any other complaint. This is because there is so much evidence toward innocence and lack of disruption that some of the accused has come out to defend themselves at length. In contrast, the truly guilty, those in other sockpuppeting complaints usually have little to say and have been banned previously. Their vandalism and bad language or non-sensical language is clear.
I urge you to come to the only right decision, that is, to end this false complaint and close it once and for all. There has been no disruption or vandalism except for the mayhem raised by Jersyko and friends.
TL500 refuting latest comments by Jersyko (called "note of responses") and DelloJello
  • technical matter 1 - DelloJello admits being a sockpuppet to DelloJello2, not Dereks1x as he/she is accused of. Therefore, DelloJello should be dropped from the complaint.
  • technical matter 2 - I am not being accused of being the sockpuppeteer. I am accused of being the sockpuppet. However, I have the most seniority among the accused so it is impossible that the others created me as a sockpuppet. Therefore, I cannot be a sockpuppet. As a result, I should be dropped from the complaint because I am accused of being a sockPUPPET.
  • Improper behavior by the accuser, Jersyko - Jersyko is trying to bring unsubstantiated fear to the Head of this Inquiry (Wikipedia Chief Administrator) by claiming there are many more sockpuppets that he originally thought. Bring in the evidence if it exist. There has been no disruption, vandalism, or multiple voting so nothing wrong has been done. And Jersyko has failed to bring in any more names of these "many more" sockpuppets.
  • Improper behavior by the accuser, Jersyko. Jersyko claims "similar writing style and rebuttals". Jersyko is trying to be tricky because he knows he has no case and is trying to scare the Head of this Inquiry. The fact is that you have to respond strictly to the complaint. For example, if someone is accused of fraud, there is a specific law (it even has a number). That law, fraud (for example) has certain elements that must be met. The same here. Wikipedia has rules and says what is wrong. They list things like vandalism and multiple voting. So, at least I've addressed those points instead of just having a "you did, no I did not, did too, did not" type argument. Derek also has, but DelloJello didn't.
  • Regarding "similar writing styles", Jersyko is an attorney. He knows that such accusation must be substantiated by expert testimony otherwise it's just hearsay and improperly trying to influence the Head of this Inquiry. Jersyko is aware that, despite the lengthy accusations and responses, he has shown that there have been absolutely no signs of vandalism, disruption, or multiple voting. The only disruption that has happened is that Jersyko has failed to assume good faith and has gone on a witch hunt (and also chased away a user, DelloJello).
  • The accuser, Jersyko, even admits that I am innocent in another page. [11] where he writes " Aside from TL500, the suspected socks had few edits outside their agreement with Dereksx1 in content disputes" (This clears ME). He, acting as the prosecutor who is in charge of making sure there is a case, even has doubts when he says (in the initial complaint at the top) "I am making this report because I suspect, but am by no means certain " and adds "I'm more confident about the first two of the socks than the last of the three." meaning that he is not confident at all about his accusation that I am a sockpuppet.
  • But these are technical (but still important) arguments in my favor. The practical argument is as follows:
Behavior and Evidence regarding TL500
Article # of Edits # of vandalism, multiple voting, arguments with others
Barack Obama ZERO (same number as DelloJello) ZERO (same number as DelloJello)
John Edwards ZERO (same number as DelloJello) ZERO (same number as DelloJello)
John Edwards talk page ZERO (DelloJello has 1 edit) ZERO (same number as DelloJello)
Obama talk page 2 (DelloJello had ZERO) ZERO (same number as DelloJello)
  • In conclusion, I have only made very polite and brief comments on one of the talk pages and not the Obama article nor the John Edwards article. I did not make any comments on the John Edwards talk page. I have done NO VANDALISM, NO DISRUPTION, NO MULTIPLE VOTING, NO BAD LANGUAGE, NOTHING. Before jersyko made my close to tears (not a secret because it was already revealed) but now I am strong. Stop this, bullies.
  • As further evidence, see this nice chart that I built. I don't know about the others, except I know Dereks1x doesn't know how to do this! Since I do, I can't be his sockpuppet! Take that, bullies!TL500 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn right that I don't know how to build a chart. Evidence: look at the homemade chart that I made in the middle of this complaint showing how the other accused had minimal or no contact with the Obama and Edwards articles.Dereks1x 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you and your socks are using charts at all instead of diffs (as clearly indicated by the SSP instructions) says a lot. Among other things, it has convinced me that TL500 is certainly one of your socks when I wasn't convinced before. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refuting new accusations by Jersyko (who keeps coming up with new accusation when the old ones are without merit and are baseless.
  • Jerskyo just noted that, based on his "evidence", there isn't proof that TL500 is a sockpuppet of mine (saying "TL500 is certainly one of your socks when I wasn't convinced before".) However, he now says he has "proof" because TL500 made up a nice chart and I had a very homemade one near the middle of this complaint. Jersyko now bases his claim that TL500 is a sockpuppet because of a chart, not because of disruption or vandalism or being a sockpuppetting editor. That is evidence that this complaint is false and baseless.
  • Jersyko claims that TL500 hasn't used diffs and that proves TL500 is a sockpuppet. The facts show that TL500 had NO contributions to the disputed articles, i.e. Obama and Edwards, no contributions to the talk page of Obama and only very minor comments about Edwards talk page (not the article) quite a few days ago. If there are no written edits, there can't be any diffs. Likewise, there are no diffs to show (which Jersyko says shows guilt) between me and Franklp, George Butler, Wlso, Akhilleus, Seraphimblade, etc. so using Jersko's flawed logic, I am those account holder's sockpuppet, too.
  • Jersyko has presented no valid evidence for sockpuppetry so has resorted to saying that TL500's chart is the reason for is complaint. Jersyko has abused being an adminstrator by abusing his knowledge of the system and gaming it. (Wikipedia says "Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia" here [12]. He has resorted to legthly complaints like this when the real reason is that he and Tvoz do not like it when their POV edits on Obama and Edwards are politely challenged with logical, civil, and NPOV edits by me. So he has accused me of being a sockpuppeteer and dragged in these other people.
  • The reason for that this complaint is so long is because I am innocent. The other complaints are shorter because many of those people are guilty and have no defense.
  • To quote TL500, "Show me where I have vandalized, show me where I've voted in multiple polls...... NONE, ZERO, NEVER, ZIPPO, NADA.Dereks1x 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • There should be no further comment unless HumanThing has anything to add. Jersyko and Tvoz have presented their case and come back to add more already. This complaint is already 42kb, bigger than most articles!Dereks1x 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

All accounts are sockpuppets of

WP:POINT at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Akhilleus. I have not blocked the sockpuppet accounts (thus far) because it appears that this user has not used the sockpuppets for block evasion. If such evasion occurs, or if other problems happen, report to my user talk page for follow up. DurovaCharge! 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The comment is an amusing work of speculative fiction and I'll leave it posted because a technical glitch delayed implementation of the 48 hour block. Dereks1x should consider himself or herself strongly cautioned regarding irresponsible and unsubstantiated allegations.
WP:DE makes good weekend reading. DurovaCharge! 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment

This block is not based on evidence. However, it is based on retaliation. Jersyko's friend was running for adminstratorship. He works on SSP's. Jersyko, after complaining, voted for his friend. I made a comment on the voting asking the candidate to avoid a conflict of interest and NOT decide on a case involving someone who was voting for him. Their friend, Durova, a fellow Seattle resident who nominated the administrator in the first place, then deleted my comment (which is just an ethics question, not disruption) and made then started to stalk me and made above determination of the very crime that she was doing (wikistalking).

You will note that Durova is not a regular SSP administration and shows that she is working as a meatpuppet of Jersyko. They are banning me because they have a POV agenda for Obama and John Edwards. You can also note that wikistalking did not occur because I had posted and looked at the adminstrator's page before.Dereks1x 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from TL500

I think the assumption of Seattle and the use of the word meatpuppet doesn't have to be included. I would add, however, that there is a conflict of interest on the part of Durova and her decison because Durova nominated a candidate for administratorship and didn't like the question that was asked. Furthermore, Jersyko was one of the people voting for the candidate. Dereks1x simply asked if the candidate would recuse himself/herself for period of time for those that voted for or against him. It seems that Durova did not like the fact that his/her candidate was being asked a legimate question. Instead, Durova paid political patronage for Jersyko's vote, i.e. since you voted for my candidate, I'll help you out hurt those who you don't like.

Also, the fact that Dereks1x is currently blocked but I can post shows that my IP is different from Dereks1x. Further proof that I am not a sockpuppet.TL500 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) TL500 08:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Dereks1x&oldid=1079096624"