Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JulesElise/Archive

Evidence submitted by Arthur Rubin
This includes all edits by both editors since March 2010:

In John Major Jenkins:
 * 20:18, July 8, 2010 Chambers109 account created
 * 20:19, July 8, 2010 JulesElise makes a spelling correction
 * 21:29, July 12, 2010 Chambers109 adds contraversial material about drug use
 * 22:40, July 12, 2010 JulesElise restores the previous edit after I reverted it

In 2012 phenomenon:
 * 22:08, July 12, 2010 Chambers109 makes an edit, which, among other things, changes the description of Jenkins from "esoteric author" to "independent researcher".
 * 22:29, July 12, 2010 Chambers109 makes more-or-less the same edit, after I reverted it.
 * 00:13, July 13, 2010 JulesElise restores the edit

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

This accusation is unwarranted. My account (Chambers109) was opened in mid-July (July 8). The account of Jules Elise is owned and operated by a separate person. When I noticed that egregiously inaccurate material about John Major Jenkins and his work was been aggressively posted on John Major Jenkins's personal Wiki bio page as well as on the "Galactic Alignment" heading in the "2012 Phenomenon" I resolved to open an account and provide accurate information to Wikipedia viewers. In the two instances cited by Arthur Rubin, Jules Elise was illustrating for me how a change can be made. This was a lesson in how to navigate within Wikipedia, a complicated environment for a newcomer. Whatever else she had done is of her own doing. Sockpuppetry is not a supportable accusation. The incredibly aggressive stance taken by Arthur Rubin, jschiapas, and Yworo in blocking and derailing the accurate posting of correctly cited facts and quotes relating to the biograpy and work of John Major Jenkins should be noted. This sockpuppetry accusation should be preserved in the archives as growing evidence for a biased, unethical, and defamatory strategy by these three Wikipedia users. We also catch a hint of Arthur Rubin's biased reading of posts made, in his characterization of a post I supplied as a "contraversial [sic] post on drug use." This was, rather, a post of accurately cited information (which was subsequently blocked) intended to clarify the defamatory and inaccurate insinuation of the existing post. Chambers109 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You say "Jules Elise was illustrating for me how a change can be made." Are you saying that you know JulesElise in real life and they were showing you on your or their computer how to edit? Yworo (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Arthur Rubin states above, inaccurately, that the offending posts occurred since March 2010. However, the cited posts occurred on exactly 2 days, July 8 and July 12. One of the accused didn't even have a Wiki account until July 8. I believe this expansion of duration of the offense was intended him to magnify the offense, at first glance, which underscores Arthur Rubin's bias in relation to the biograpy and work of John Major Jenkins. Chambers109 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He says these are the only edits made by the two accounts since March 10th. That was completely accurate at the time. Please answer the questions below. Yworo (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would this be relevant? Let's let the Wiki arbitration decide this accusation of sockpuppetry, shall we? Now that we are in direct contact, I'd like to ask you please use restraint in weilding Wikipedia protocol to block or derail or obfuscate the accurate presentation of cited quotes and facts about the biography and work of John Major Jenkins. Chambers109 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's relevant because our policy says that it is not okay to recruit other editors to help you win an edit war. See here. It is indistinguishable from sockpuppetry, and if you have ever shared a computer, a checkuser will confirm you as a sockpuppet. So it's relevant. Yworo (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I agree that the circumstances of the creation and use of Chambers109 appears to indicate sockpuppetry. Yworo (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yworo and Arthur Rubin and jschipas are evidently allied in blocking and derailing correctly cited additions to John Major Jenkins's bio page and other topics that relate to his work. See edit history of "John Major Jenkins" entry and "Galactic Alignment" heading in the "2012 Phenomenon" entry. Chambers109 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your account was opened 1 minute before JulesElise made an edit. Did JulesElise open the account for you or were they physically present and assisting you to open an account, then logged in as themselves to show you how to edit? Yworo (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We should add to this please. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

was created one minute prior to an edit by, both actions occurred on the same IP address, though the user agents are different. Looking at the user agents from that date, and since, they look like two different people using different computers. There has been no further IP overlap since that single occasion. appears to be unrelated. KnightLago (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that even if JulesElise and Chambers are different people, there is still tag-teaming and meatpuppetry, aka socking. Blocking both. ( X! ·  talk )  · @255  · 05:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)