User talk:I m dude2002

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/I m dude2002 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. — George Saliba[ talk ] 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When you are accused of sockpuppetry, it is pretty much the same as being accused of a crime. You should not assume that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty because wikipedia standards of due process can vary between entities or jurisdictions.

I have examined the March 27, 2007 "evidence" and have taken the liberty of adding a comment in the complaint under "Comment by an uninterested (uninvolved) party" in your support.

It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets

I have also been falsely accused of sockpuppetry by a gang of 3 people who have the same opinion and are very aggressive. It looks to me that the other accused sockpuppets are involved in writing on different subjects and rarely or never participate in the articles that they are accused of sockpuppetry.

My case is under my user name (Dereks1x). I am not asking you to also write a "Comment in Support by an uninterested (uninvolved) party" but I, obviously don't have any control over you!!! :) Dereks1x 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I've stricken the last part out because of tips given to me by Mbc362, a friend of Tvoz.Dereks1x 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for the abusive use of sock puppets. It is not acceptable to use alternate accounts or edit anonymously to give the appearance of consensus or support. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? I made it very clear that I didn't use any other accounts to give the impression of consensus or support. It was someone else's account. I m dude2002 21:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, and I did take your statements into consideration. To be quite honest, though, given a comparison of the editing history of the accounts, there is a tremendous similarity both in editing patterns, right down to typos and misspellings that are the same between all of them. Given this, it appears that they are all operated by the same person. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to give some examples of common typos? I m dude2002 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The timing patterns, and the unusual spelling of "consensus" as "concensus" between the two accounts, are really enough on their own. The typing and speech patterns are near-identical, and also show a strong connection. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. We misspell one word and that is enough to show that we are the same person? I'm not denying we know one another. That's why the timing patterns may seem odd. But we are not the same person and I did not incite either of the other two editors into editing. I m dude2002 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, one misspelling is not enough to show that the two accounts are operated by the same person, but that's far from all there is. The timing patterns seem more than "odd", they are clear, as are the exceptionally similar interests and typing patterns. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are exceptionally similar. But I have explained to you why that is the case. I suppose that's the price I pay for disagreeing with the antisemitic mainstream on wikipedia. I m dude2002 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what you mean there (and I'm a bit troubled by the unsupported and pretty serious accusation.) If you compared my typing pattern and that of any of my friends, you could easily distinguish them-usually, when someone I know changes screen names, I can still tell exactly who it is by their typing and speech style, just like recognizing a friend's voice on the phone or his face on the street. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't buy that for a second. I m dude2002 13:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Revenge" sockpuppet cases
Please do not file vexatious and baseless "revenge" cases, as this is likely to be considered disruption to make a point. I've brought your actions to the attention of the incident noticeboard, you may wish to comment there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)