Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DrJamesX

User:DrJamesX

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets

Less recent activity


 * Report submission by
 * Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * Single purpose accounts, most largely abanoned since May 2008 but some still active.
 * User_talk:JamesHX and User_talk:DrJamesX have similar names and usage patterns
 * User_talk:Switchintoglide and User_talk:DrJamesX have similar editing and commenting patterns. Note comments, tone, style, content on the following pages:
 * Talk:David_Ferguson_(impresario)
 * User_talk:Uwishiwazjohng
 * User_talk:DoriSmith.
 * User_talk:76.252.217.243 has logged into User_talk:DoriSmith and thenUser:SineBot repaired the signature to be User_talk:DrJamesX.
 * User_talk:Quotseeky and User_talk:Melrosechoc both engage in the same kind of activity: removal of the same content without comment. Quotseeky, new user, also called something libelous in first and only post. User_talk:DrJamesX also claims libel (not reporting that here)
 * User_talk:Californiaarts, User_talk:CassandaCamorra, and User_talk:64.95.122.34 are single purpose accounts on the the pages as the above users

''(Note from Uwishiwazjohng) ''Please check the history of this page. User Switchintoglide removed text here that confuses the context. The identified themselves, saying they had edited the David Bowie page and saying that they could not be DrJamesX by using personal information. ''

Switchintoglide also said "I have also never made a legal threat towards you or anyone else, so that evidence is false."

Switchintoglide (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the false statement that User_talk:Switchintoglide since I was mistaken. The person who called my addition libelous appears to be, as she admitted on User_talk:DoriSmith, her boyfriend User_talk:Quotseeky.  She also claims not to know User_talk:DrJamesX but in the same sentence identifies him as a man twice her age.  She claims that she also has worked on David Bowie's page.  She has in fact made 2 edits, compared to the 20 she made to David Ferguson (impresario).  Her first edit was to remove all requests for more/better citations.  Her membership started on November 22, which was during the time that an edit war was brewing on this page. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * His name is "DrJamesX"; James is a man's name.
 * He said he was a biographer of Mr. Ferguson; I don't know many biographers my age!
 * I think my assumption is reasonable.
 * Switchintoglide (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we can both agree now from the talk on other pages that your charges are out-dated.Switchintoglide (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The following [|diff] shows that User:Switchintoglide added a citation from 'Lecture Catalog (1974/1975) - David Ferguson Lecture agency'. The likeliest way the user would know about this source is by being personally acquainted with Mr. Ferguson. This source was self-published by Mr. Ferguson, is not searchable on the internet, and was not widely distributed.  Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Email admin@ifuc.org for inquiries about citations. I was interested in the work of Vaughn Bode and how he was affiliated with Ferguson and emailed a request for more information. I received a nice reply with information about the lecture catalogues and other wrk of the IFUC. I would say that this is "the likeliest way" I knew about these sources. Thank you for your concern!
 * Switchintoglide (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Uwishiwasjohng has already let me know s/he made a mistake

"Switchintoglide, I see that you are trying to get help and that you are worried that I'm going to get you in trouble. When you stepped into this mess, you came in the middle of an edit war between DrJamesX and I. I can see that you are sincerely trying to appeal to admins.

Let's be adults about this and fix it ourselves. Let's do what we can to make reasonable edits. I want to work *with* you, not against you. I want this to be article to be accurate.

What do you say? I propose we continue to discuss the edits on the talk page and try to make the edits together.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)"
 * I did this to try to de-escalate. Please note that I made no admission of wrongdoing, because I don't believe I'm wrong. Actually, I wanted to see if the user would work with me.  The reaction further convinced me that the user is a meat-puppet. It did nothing but spur another suspected meat puppet into action.  Now User:Melrosechoc who suddenly has started contributing to other articles.  This is similar to what User:Switchintoglide did.  Note that User:Switchintoglide asked me to remove my accusation for her, her admitted boyfriend, User:Quotseeky and User:Melrosechoc.  Now, User:Melrosechoc is making similar edits, removing the Legal History section and adding page citations  Uwishiwazjohng (talk)
 * I don't know Melrosechoc, but s/he appears to be trying to improve the article with citations and I think you need to leave him/her alone to do what you have expressly said to be your intention. If you keep making problems for people who try to improve the article, can't you see that users will read something into your intentions? Just lighten up! Not everyone who contributes is "against you" and I don't think that all of the users you have accused deserve to be treated this way! Switchintoglide (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, User:Melrosechoc is making contributions that indicate to me that she has information that only those on the inside of David Ferguson's organization would have, such as the fact that IFUC is now a private organization, and that CD Presents in now an EU company. Your adamant defense of the user makes me more convinced that you know him/her  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.56.73 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea with whom User:Melrosechoc associates, and mentioning a name is not being "adamant" as you assert. An example of being adamant is your obsession with all things David Ferguson. It looks like you spend hours at it, whereas I spent 5 seconds mentioning his/her name in saying that you may have been unfair to him/her. Contrary to what you may think, this is not a conspiracy against your edits.Switchintoglide (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet of James. It should be clear to anyone who visits this, that uwishiwasjohng has simply accused everyone who has ever been to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quotseeky (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotseeky
 * This accusation is untrue. There were a few accounts that weren't WP:SPA and I didn't include those. I include User:Quotseeky of being a sock/meatpuppet because the only action they had committed at the time was to vandalize my Legal History section, which at least 4 different users did within a few days —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs) 04:15, December 16, 2008 (UTC)

Comments by EdJohnston
This report is quite implausible. All I see is that David Ferguson (impresario) has been the scene of many disputes; that there seem to be COI-affected editors here and there, that there are WP:UNDUE weight questions about how much to emphasize his legal troubles (an ongoing penalty of $10.85 a day is unlikely to deserve space in the article, and in fact the whole Legal section appears to be small potatoes); there is quite a lot of indignation and there are people who write at great length. Geolocating the various IPs, which anyone can do, shows that there are editors from New York City, from Stanford University, and from Montreal Canada. It is hardly credible that User:DrJamesX is the controlling mastermind of such a diverse empire. I see nothing that merits even a Request for Checkuser. There could be some policy violations in the editing of the article, but I encourage the users to open an article WP:RFC if they want to bring in outsiders to help with a specific question. In my opinion, the sockpuppet report should be closed. I'll let it rest for a day or two to see if any other comments come in. There is also quite a bit of good-faith editing going on, and a lot of people who are trying to do the right thing, although they hold very different views of what that might be. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Closed with no action, per my comment above. If anyone can get some new data that is more persuasive, open a new SSP report and mention this one. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions