Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Dereks1x (17th)



 * Supporting evidence: He seemed to pop up the same time another of Derek's socks did and on the same subjects..

Seems to me he could be one of Derekx1's socks...Just has that kinda feel to it.--seattlehawk94 (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merged here from Requests for checkusers/Case/Klemm1. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seattlehawk94, can you say which other Derek sock you're referring to? Note that Klemm1 hasn't edited since June.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive would be that one's name....They appeared at the same time. --seattlehawk94 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * - sorry - A l is o n  ❤ 21:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC) (per email request from CU)


 * ... and the editor posting this request, is  ✅ as being } -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I was quite incorrect in the above determination. I have unblocked and apologized some months back. My mistake entirely, sorry - A l is o n  ❤ 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dereks1x 16

 * Code Letter:F Block log of Dereks1x
 * Code Letter:F Block log of Dereks1x

See WP:AN/I for evidence. Particular this comment by Tvoz about the similarities between Watchingobama and previous Dereks1x socks. I didn't include another username to check against because most of his identified socks are too stale to actually use, but several of the checkusers have experience with the user, so will hopefully be familiar with the IP range that he operates out of. Watchingobama is currently indefinitely blocked for being disruptive, but is attempting to get an unblock via his talkpage and repeated use of the unblock template. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - A l is o n  ❤ 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dereks1x XV

 * Code Letter:F Block log of Dereks1x
 * Code Letter:F Block log of Dereks1x
 * Code Letter:F Block log of Dereks1x
 * Code Letter:F Block log of Dereks1x
 * Code Letter:F Block log of Dereks1x

I am requesting this checkuser to determine if Heidianddick (who had tried unsuccessfully for adminship right before NrDg started his RfA) is to reasonable possibility a sockpuppet of Dereks1x or simply a victim of extraordinary circumstance. As Dereks has been blocked for a while, I am listing two known recent socks (Thatswrong, Derekhunter) and the user H&D claims to be the wife of (VK35, another d1x sock). I am well aware that, if the results are positive, then the most it can be is Likely. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How can it be clearer than claiming that they are the wife of a blocked sock? CheckUser isn't magic wiki pixie dust, so even if this unlikely claim is true, they'll have the same IP. Dmcdevit·t 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All users are blocked, should I consider this case as closed (declined)? -- lucasbfr talk 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Dmcdevit·t 16:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

NrDg





 * Code letter: F ban evasion by Dereks1x
 * Supporting evidence:

NrDg is an obvious sock of banned user, Dereks1x. I am filing this RFCU because I AGF way over what is usual. As Tvoz says, the MO of Dereks1x is to attack with several socks at once. The first wave of attack was blocked 2 days ago when he/his sock tried to run for admin with a self nominated RFA. The second wave of attack (started only after the first RFA was defeated and the user blocked) is NrDg, who has a RFA and plans to edit war as soon as it is granted.

I’ve been watching NrDg for a while and suspected foul play. His style of writing is exactly like Dereks1x. His user name probably stands for NefaRious Derek (with g as in Dereg sounding like Derek). Most of the Dereks1x socks have a double meaning if you really think about it. Like Dereks1x, he pretends to be an expert in one field, this time Disney. He started editing about the time Dereks1x was in trouble and soon afterwards blocked. He suspiciously was well versed in doing edit summaries from his very first edit (since he is Dereks1x).

All we need is checkuser confirmation that it is possible that NrDg is Dereks1x. Derekhunter 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need such confirmation for YOU, unfortunately. Blocking Derekhunter as a Dereks sock after reading the above. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In that Clerks do not comment on the merits of cases, including any questions over the "reliability" of the filing Party, I'm going ahead and listing this case. Anthøny  21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Peace2008 (Dereks1x 13th)





 * F: Ban evasion by Dereks1x.

Tvoz and Bobblehead filed a 12th checkuser and seem bent on calling everyone who edits anything less than glowing edits on certain politicians. Although I read WP a lot and know the lingo, I have only started editing today because I've seen too much corruption. Because I edited some sensible comments, they will seek every means of calling me a sock of Dereks1x, a convenient excuse to ban everyone.

dmcdevit seems to be in on this so he should recuse himself.

Since they will accuse me of being Dereks1x, then I must be Jessica Bell, Greenwinged, and Polounit. Their edits are all different which leads me to believe they are completely different people, possibly even in different countries.

The suspicious thing is that on the 12th checkuser, they suggested to the checkuser to use "likely or possible", in other words a code message to the checkuser. If all of the users were really socks, their edits would be the same and it would be a "confirmed" result. In the 12th request, they also have a convenient excuse of something about dynamic IP. What they are trying to say is "any IP is Derek and anyone we don't like will be banned on the excuse as Derek". I will not edit war but I want to make it clear that I am not Derek. If the checkuser refuses to run the checkuser, then Tvoz and Bobblehead, stop complaining. Peace2008 (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This malformed checkuser request reflects the same Dereks1x sock M.O. as always - another sock reacting to yesterday's block of .  Known to edit from unrelated IPs on occasion, so can expect this one that he files on himself would yield an unrelated - but the above and other "contributions" make it obvious. See some of the history here. Tvoz | talk 01:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Filer has been blocked on behavior as a Dereks sock. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 02:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this should be moved to the Dereks1x case page and archived there - but since I'm not sure if civilians are allowed to do that, I'm leaving this as a clerk request. Tvoz | talk 02:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * this request was previously listed at Requests for checkuser/Case/Peace2008. Thus, the edit history for the latest request (titled "Peace2008") is located here. Anthøny  11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * the filer has been blocked indefinitely, but I have listed this Request regardless. The handling CheckUser can decide whether to run or not - that's not the Clerk's area :) Anthøny  11:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The request is a "Prove My Innocence" check, which is explicitly disallowed, IINM. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * --Deskana (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * , who has been editing this particular request very recently, has also been blocked on behavior as a Dereks sock. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 00:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (12th)





 * F: Ban evasion by Dereks1x.

Jessica Bell is following similar patterns as other Dereks1x socks and is using wording that is common among all Dereks1x socks. Similar patterns are that they edit for a short period after a previous Dereks1x sockfarm is shutdown (see where  was identified and blocked for proximity of Jessica Bell's creation and the blocking of that account) and then they are abandoned for a few months before returning to try and force negative information related to a Democrat onto the Democrat's article. Another common pattern is to make an edit on the article and then immediately make a post on the talk page to justify the edit. This is something a new user rarely does. Common wording with other Dereks1x socks is the wording Jessica Bell uses in the edit summary of the edit linked above and the wording of the talk page edit also edited above. In both cases Jessica Bell uses wording that makes it appear that the addition is not necessarily their own belief, is claiming their edit is neutrally worded, and in the case of the talk page edit is necessary because the lack of this information is hiding the truth in some manner. Similar wording from a previous Dereks1x sock is here.

Please be aware that Dereks1x edits from a dynamic IP address range, so the closest one will be able to get in a checkuser is generally Likely or Possible. Thanks. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment, and was going to post it as well. Tvoz | talk 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

. Dmcdevit·t 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (11th)





 * F: Ban evasion by Dereks1x.

Greenwinged is a sock of banned user Dereks1x (according to Turtlescrubber ). This accusation should be proven or it's incivility (given the harsh tone of the accusation).

Turtlescruber and Bobblehead are the two main people on that talk page to scream about Derek socks. Are they singing as imaginary friends? I accuse them not while waiting for some checkuser evidence, which will also find out if either of the two (or one) is creating sock Greenwinged so that they can look like phony sockpuppet fighters. The evidence for that is neither requested a checkuser but are so quick to call Greenwinged a sock (which could be because they created the sock themselves?)

I have purposely posed the above question here to keep it low keyed instead of screaming on talk pages "Sock!" or on WP:ANI or elsewhere cuz I know from personal experience that a false accusation of being a sock can make a good editor (like me) stop contributing even after being unblocked. Administrator Walton made such observation. Request checkuser Voice of All because he knows me. Polounit 04:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well.. At least Dereks1x makes it easy to identify his socks.. Can one of the clerks fix this malformed checkuser requests?  It should be under Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. Polounit is obviously a sock of Dereks1x and if anyone should be included on the checkuser, it should be him. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Both Polounit and Greenwinged are obvious socks of Dereks1x. (Greenwinged solo comment was to suggest that another one of Derek's sock's comments be restored - typical of his m.o.) Tvoz | talk 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have indef blocked Greenwinged, as well as Polounit, who filed this case. Both are Dereks1x socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please merge this to the Dereks1x case page and archive it there.
 * as trolling, obviously, but note that checkuser confirms the accounts blocked are Dereks1x socks. Dmcdevit·t 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm placing this in complete actually since CU actions seem to have been performed (and could another clerk merge please). Kwsn   (Ni!)  02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved per request. WjBscribe 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider the request. I am very curious about the outcome.  Greenwinged seems completely different from Polounit.  With Greenwinged = Dereks1x and Polounit = Dereks1x, then Polounit = Greenwinged.  It seems to me that Greenwinged does not equal Polounit.  Although Greenwinged has only one edit, he/she may have logged in more than once to find they are blocked so the checkuser has more information that most of us have. Appealplease 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (10th)


Code letter: F (block log)

Tell ya, this guy just won't go away. Oprahwasontv reverted my removal of Local667forOB's edits from the Barack Obama page and accused me of feuding with Local, the dispute accusation is something that another sock, VK35, has previously done with regards to myself, Jersyko, and Feddhicks. Dexmar then reverted Turtlescrubber and accused him of being a sock of me, which is another common technique of Dereks1x. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - checkuser isn't really necessary here, in my opinion. These are obvious socks.  Given my past involvement, however, I hesitate to block them myself. ·  jersyko   talk  14:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Dexmar has been blocked indefinitely, Oprahwasontv is still alive and kicking.--Bobblehead (rants) 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * for Oprahwasontv, for Dexmar. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (9th)


Code letter: F (block log)

Local667forOb is the new account that should be checked, Dereks1x is too old to check on own, so added socks from previous RFCU to this report for confirmation. All in all, typical Dereks1x actions, tendentious editing to get his way on the article, frequent accusation of "lying" and complaining about other users deleting cited material. Diffs can be provided if necessary, but this is an abusive sockpuppet creator and detailed search of edit histories for all his socks is extremely time consuming. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * , perhaps even ; Local667 is on the same set of dynamic IPs as VK35 and Feddhicks. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll pop over to WP:AN/I and see if anyone wants to lay the block down on him. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (8th)


Code letter: F (block log)

HappyFarmer popped up at AN/I to complain about admin abuse in the blocking of as a Dereks1x sock (see AN/I thread). This was his 10th edit or so; the content of his edits show him to be an old Wikipedia hand, and his focus on "admin abuse" in connection with the blocking of a Dereks1x sock are suspicious. If this is confirmed and any sleeper accounts are identified, I'd be happy to block them. Thanks. MastCell Talk 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I added Feddhicks, who I indef blocked as the most recent obvious Dereks1x sock today, and VK35 to the list. I have confirmed in the past via e-mail with a checkuser that VK35 is editing from the same IP range as Dereks1x.  Hopefully, checking VK35, HappyFarmerofAsparagus, Feddhicks, and Dereks1x against one another will clear up who is a sock and who isn't, given that two in the list are known to be Dereks1x (one recent sock plus the original account). ·  jersyko   talk  00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Long discussion moved to talk. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that all these edit from the same IP range. It's a /12 network, however, which means that there are 1,048,576 IP addresses there. So the fact that there is no overlap in usage between, say, Feddhicks and HappyFarmer, says nothing either positive or negative about their relationship with each other. Ones eyebrows are raised, though, when there is an overlap; with over a million different IPs, why have Feddhicks and VK35 edited, within minutes of each other, on the same IP? Could be coincidence, could be nefarious behavior, could be nothing at all. That's why the most I can say in situations like this is ; behavioral evidence and editing content has to carry far more weight here than analytical results. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (7th)





 * Code letter: F; diff = []

I think that Spevw and Dereks1x are socks. Dereks1x is community banned and edit warred in the John Edwards article. He also edited on Calvert Deforest about him working for Parke Davis [].

Spevw also edited about John Edwards making a joke about mental illness. Spevw also made a comment about Parke Davis here []. Given that both edited about John Edwards and both made a mention of the Parke Davis company (although in different articles), I am very suspicious. John Edwards is a good man not worthy of criticism.

I am usually easy going but Dereks1x is a bad person. Dereks1x is known to be tricky so I think Spevw's edits about Colby College (in Maine) is just a diversion and that Spevw is really nowhere near Maine. The checkuser will prove it and prove the 2 to be socks. Thank you. RevAEdwards 02:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * moved from Requests for checkuser/Case/Spevw -- lucasbfr talk 17:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I assumed you meant Dereks1x, not Derekx1s. -- lucasbfr talk 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

❌.  Voice -of- All  02:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (6th)





 * F

soapboxing screed by banned user removed · jersyko   talk  12:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * moved from Requests for checkuser/Case/Bobblehead -- lucasbfr talk 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

✅ that Nostasi and Nostasi2 are Dereks1x. Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (5th)



 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F

Edits from this username began a few hours after Ryulong blocked a few other obvious Dereks1x socks that were attacking him (e.g.). Like other Dereks1x socks, this editor is heavily involved in discussion at Talk:Barack Obama (almost to the point of being able to call it a SPA). Like Doc United States and other Dereks1x socks, however, this editor edited articles in a seemingly random area of "expertise" ((just one other article in this case, Oxygen Enhancement Ratio). I say "random" because for each sock, Dereks1x appears to choose a new area of "expertise" on which that sock will focus (Doc was medicine, TL500 was airplanes, this editor appears to be nuclear science). ·  jersyko   talk  14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I amended this request to add User:Hempbilly, who is a new user who just started editing the Obama article and talk page in the style of Dereks1x (and who has far too intimate a knowledge of wiki-markup to be a brand new user, as this was the user's first edit). · jersyko   talk  16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * . And even more amusingly, before I even looked at this, Hempbilly left a message on my talk page asserting he is nobody's sockpuppet. I didn't find any connection between Hempbilly and the others; but he does seem to be in lockstep with User:TDC. On the other hand, Nuclearj isn't IP-related to Dereks1x either, unless User:Sethtothej and/or User:BlueAg09 are, and I couldn't relate them directly. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (4th)



 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F

Lawman8 appeared on the Barack Obama page shortly after the pages semi-protection ended and started making similar edits to another Dereks1x sock in regards to Barack Obama's support among police officers following his endorsement by the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. Lawman8's talk page edits are similar to Dereks1x and socks have often made comparisons between removal of their "compromise edits" and the actions of communists.

--Bobblehead 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (3rd)





 * Code letter: F

A recent RFCU confirmed that Dereks1x was using a sock with likely false medical credentials to bolster a policy argument (see also Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x). A thread at the at the community sanction noticeboard is likely to lead to a community ban of Dereks1x and any socks. began posting at that thread, and Atlas87's focus on "due process" violations by the community toward Dereks1x made me strongly suspect that Atlas87 is a Dereks1x sock, especially given that Dereks1x made had a similar, unique concern before his block. This comment on Doc United States' talk page (soon after I started the below RFCU) and this cryptic comment at RfA (soon after I commented in the same RfA) served to confirm my suspicions. I blocked Atlas87 given the severity of Dereks1x's offenses (i.e. use of false credentials) and requested review of my block at CN, and an early comment suggested another RFCU. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x (2nd)





 * Code letter: F

As a result of Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x, Dereks1x was blocked for 48 hours by Durova for WP:POINT violations, and his socks were all blocked indefinitely after they continued editing after Dereks1x was under his block. Today, User:Doc United States made an edit at Talk:John Edwards that makes me suspect Doc might also be a sock of Dereks1x. Here are the relevant diffs that makes me think this RFCU is needed: Doc United States has edited some medical articles, but Dereks1x is known to be editing from a library and would certainly have access to medical books. Anyway, given the timing of Doc's account creation and the content of his comment at Talk:John Edwards today, I think it's quite possible that Dereks1x is not only evading his block again, but also trying to pass off false credentials with his sock in an attempt to bolster his arguments. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Dereks1x placed "expert" tag in the John Edwards article to encourage an expert to conduct original research on Ms. Edwards' cancer (see talk, basically the crux of the dispute) at 12:19 on March 26
 * 2) New User account created, User:Doc United States at 14:30, March 26
 * 3) After a few days of editing medical articles, Doc United States adds a comment in support of Dereks1x's position at Talk:John Edwards today.


 * Actually, here are a few more diffs that provide further evidence that Doc is a sock of Dereks1x (i.e., the odd focus on the Edwards situation):    · j e r s y k o talk · 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merged from Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x 2. mrholybrain 's talk 00:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe the fact that Dereks1x and Doc United States are the same person has been confirmed. mrholybrain 's talk 10:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * removing diploma picture and statement, since checkuser is not here to verify one person's resumé but the possibility of 2 accounts to used by the same person. -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 21:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x





 * Code letter: G

See also Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x. I am making this request because I suspect that Dereks1x is using sockpuppets to attempt to gain advantages in content disputes through article text editing and (more often) on talk pages. Aside from TL500, the suspected socks had few edits outside their agreement with Dereksx1 in content disputes (though I understand that at least one of the socks has increased his/her editing as of today, see Bobblehead diff below). 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. I'm more confident about the first two of the socks than the last of the three.

Relevant diffs on socks possibly being used to gain an advantage in content disputes:
 * Talk:John Edwards (and related comments):, , , etc, see history
 * Talk:Barack Obama:, , , etc, see history
 * Lake City, Seattle, Washington:, , , etc, see history

Additionally, see diffs provided by Bobblehead and others from Tvoz at the SSP.· <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the checkuser's judgement call, not yours or mine. PTO 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Request should be denied because of failure to "use other methods first" (see top of RFCU page), not being a "difficult case" and "checkuser is not for fishing". See SSP page for explaination that Derek has been civil, not disruptive, and has contributed much valuble and rare material on a variety of non-political subjects.  Other accused users have engaged in almost no political discussion and all 4 users write about exclusively different things.  Complainer is attempting to harrass in order to stamp out any civil discussion and invade privacy of users.Dereks1x 06:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''