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 talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:JMax555[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

JMax555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hogd120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
GlassFET (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Parsifal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kephera975 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User:IPSOS shows a remarkable similarity in POV-pushing for the articles involved in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with User:JMax555 and User:999 who has already been banned for sockpuppetry. Since 999 worked and created these articles it would not surprise me if he has come back to defend the contemporary articles found here: The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn and here: The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. . User:JMax555 is a prominent member of The Open Source and this behavior is remarkably familiar to his. The use of capitolized letters, for example, to emphasize a point is apparent in both User:IPSOS and User:JMax555: here Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 1 and here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Notice that an unknown new sigle purpose account COI driven User:Hogd120 just appears providing citations for User:IPSOS on the AfD page. This current AfD may be being disrupted by sockpuppets as was the case with User:999 here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Stella Matutina in the first AfD nomination. Notice that User:999 was a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Baba Louis and User:Hanuman Das and others. Furthermore, User:JMax555 would understand that his editing could be discounted as he is a known member of that organization as can seen from his talk page: User:JMax555 . This would be why JMax would use socksAdditionally, it appears that User:JMax555 was somehow alerted that User:IPSOS was conversing with an administrator: User:Isotope23 without any evidence showing on his own talk page: User:JMax555 that he was alerted at all. It was my decision to put up all the contemporary Orders for AfD because they lack or lacked in verifiability but these users continue to manipulate Wikipedia as a WP:SOAP box for their own POV's. Their views are so similiar that they are almost clones of one another, and with the fact that User:999 created these articles, it would not suprpise me if he created more socks to defend them in an attempt to use Wikipedia for COI and advertisment on behalf of these two organizations. Could someone check if there is any relation between these users? Kephera975 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Response from JMax555: I can't find a specific protocol for defending oneself from SSP charges, so if commenting here is inappropriate, I apologize.
First of all, I deny running any sock-puppets whatsoever, now or in the past, on Wikipedia or anywhere else.
I have only this single account on Wikipedia. I am not the same person, nor related in any way to Users IPSOS, hogd120, Parsifal, or GlassFET. I do not know them or their identities, I have never met them, I have never corresponded with them in any form. I edited some of the same articles (last year) as did User 999, but I am not the same person, and I have never worked with any of the others listed as my "sock puppets". I had thought the GD edit wars were over with. I created one article here about Florence Farr, but the experience with the Golden Dawn edit warring generally soured me on Wikipedia and I have only sporadically visited since then, mostly for research not editing. I did continue to work on the Farr article when I had the spare time, simply because it was the only article I ever created and was given a (B) rating and suggested for peer review to be made a featured article. If it hadn't been for the bad experience I had here last year, I might have remained more active in the Wiki community.
I was unaware of this dispute until I was sent an e-mail by a friend last week that the OSOGD article was tagged for deletion, so I looked in on it, and saw the extent to which these edit wars had escalated yet again. I sent one message to Isotope23's User Page pointing out 3rd party verification regarding the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn article. (I received no reply or acknowledgment of any kind.) That was the total extent of my involvement. As for full disclosure, I am an officer of that organization, but I did not create the article about it, nor do any editing other than minor edits and adding the official seal JPG. As I said on the OSOGD Talk page, it seemed inappropriate for me to edit the article, so I only made suggestions via the Talk page for other editors.
With the single exception of one minor edit I made to the historical Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article last February, I have not made any edits of any article concerning the Golden Dawn since June of 2006, or posted to any Talk pages about these topics since that time, under any name, IP, handle or account. I have not proposed or discussed any edits with any other editor, either here in Wikipedia or via any offsite communications with anyone.
Kephera975 has absolutely no evidence to support his accusation I am using sock-puppets or am in collusion with anyone, except to allude to a general agreement he imagines I would have with these editors on some of the disputed issues. I deliberately stayed out of the recent AfD debates concerning Golden Dawn articles, since I knew any involvement would likely cause certain persons to use me as a "lightning rod" and further taint what seemed to me an already tainted process. Now it appears I'm going to be accused of malfeasance by these people no matter what I do or don't do.
I apologize to the editors and administrators for any inconvenience my non-participation here may have caused. JMax555 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that User:Kephera975 questioned in his accusations how I found out that User:Isotope23 was involved in the AfD disputes over the Golden Dawn order articles, saying that I "was somehow alerted that User:IPSOS was conversing with an administrator: User:Isotope23 without any evidence showing on his own talk page: User:JMax555 that he was alerted at all." The answer is simple. It was Isotope23 who placed the (primary source) tag on the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn article on August 1st, as the edit log clearly shows. So naturally, when I checked the article after being e-mailed that it was AfD nominated, and finding that Isotope23 was an administrator, I sent a message to his User:Talk page informing him of a third-party book reference. At that point in time I had no idea IPSOS was conversing with anyone over it. I was "alerted" via e-mail by a friend who casually looked up the OSOGD on Wikipedia and saw that it was being disputed, and thought I should know.
From my (admittedly non-neutral) point-of-view, it seems that Kephera's accusation of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry was made in bad faith. He simply included the User names of everyone whom he had disputes over these articles with, hoping to impugn or eliminate his opposition. Either that, or he simply can't grasp the concept that anyone could possibly support a position he imagines I would support based solely on the facts of each case, without some kind of conspiracy being involved. JMax555 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, You had collaborated in the articles created by User:999, User:Hanuman Das, User:Baba Louis and all of those users who created these contemporary Golden Dawn pages who have been proven socks: Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 3 . There is incontrovertible evidence of that here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Stella Matutina where he talks with himself to effect the outcome of this AfD and gets it closed by consensus using mainly socks. This isn't personal. I'm simply wondering if there are any socks left of User:999 or if there is any meatpuppetry going on left over from that particular editor. Obviously, User:999 had misused socks to try to effect the outcomes of AfD's in the past. Kephera975 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why drag me into it now, seeing as how I didn't even participate in the discussions over the AfDs? I'm not listed as one of User:999's suspected socks, and no one ever accused me of being one before. Ultimately, the issue of what articles User:999 created under whatever accounts is moot. The articles have to pass the muster of notability and verifiability on their own merits, regardless of who creates or edits them. I voluntarily recused myself from the AfD consensus discussions to avoid being accused of sockpuppetry and tainting the process. But since you've opened up that can of worms now, I may well participate if the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn Inc. article is re-listed, since I am one of the original editors of that article. If I do decide to join in the consensus process, I will openly disclose my associations and let the admin people take what I say with as many grains of salt as they wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMax555 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 August 2007

Sorry, I forgot to sign the above. JMax555 23:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason an article's author should not comment on an AfD, even with a "keep" !vote. Opportunity to enter a comment is one of the reasons it's suggested to inform the author when an article is nominated for AfD. --Parsifal Hello 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Kephera975 says: "On The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, an AfD was posted in which IPSOS removes the tag before any consensus is reached on whether the article should be deleted or not." This is demonstrably false. The Afd was closed by JoshuaZ here and the AfD tag was removed by him as well, here.

Furthermore, I've never added any pro-organization content to any of the articles. I've improved grammar, added text to bare reference links, fixed the capitalization of headings, and undone blind reverts which undid these improvements and those of other editors. I have never added any significant content to any of the articles that Kephera975 is apparently obsessed with. IPSOS (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed, I've retracted the AfD tag removal argument. Kephera975 02:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not when I first posted this. You changed it afterwards. Either that or my browser cache the page for a bit. IPSOS (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to also be retaliating with this whole SSP in general for the SSP about him at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 and as part of his ongoing campaign (seemingly) to discredit User:IPSOS, for reasons I do not know or understand. I did not file that other report, but I did enter comments there. In my comments I was careful to stay as neutral as I could and mainly my comments were about two of the other accounts in that report, not about Kephera975.
Regarding my relationship with all of the other accounts in this report, I have never edited any articles in common with any of them (so far as I am aware), other than the large batch of AfD's posted by Kephera975 recently, which is where I first encountered him. I do occasionally edit topics related to religious or fraternal orders, such as Freemasonry so there may be some of those also edited by the other editors listed in this report. If so, I was not aware of it and I have never collaborated with any of those editors or had any significant communications with them.
Most of my editing is on music topics and dispute resolution, especially responding to reports at WP:WQA, which I believe is how I ran across this whole situation in the first place. --Parsifal Hello 03:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should also point out that User:Kephera975 added my name onto this report without any evidence. He did not include evidence about me in relation to the others he listed... because there isn't any. That further shows that his report is in "bad faith". If he puts a user on the list, he should show evidence. If he has no evidence, he should not list the user. --Parsifal Hello 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've collaborated with GlassFET on Mandrake of Oxford which IIRC he started. Other than that, I've run into this user only on Golden Dawn articles, that I recall. Since I've currently edited 2056 unique pages, that amounts to less than 1% intersection. Similarly for GlassFET, who has edited 1582 different articles. Looks like we both have an interest in the Golden Dawn, but otherwise our interests are different and don't overlap. IPSOS (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be just watch list items then, which overlap with my own, re Dune (novel), Mandrake of Oxford, the AfDs on these Golden Dawn articles (and the content of them all too). It seemed a fair few to me, but I'm new and the scope of my edits is far less than your own. To reaffirm my view though: I don't believe any of these users are the same person and, since the accusation specifically states 'sockpuppetry', it seems like a clear cut case to me... ColdmachineTalk 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I used to have Dune (novel) on my watchlist, but I dropped it b/c my watchlist was getting too big. Didn't recall GlassFET from that context, but I see from looking at the history that it was another article we both edited while it was on my watchlist. IPSOS (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
More