Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/GabrielVelasquez

User:GabrielVelasquez

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

John Carter (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The suspected sockpuppet master has recently been involved in heated discussion about providing sources for statements he has made. I am a new admin, and have reported the case twice, most recently at Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Please feel free to observe the discussion there, as well as the previous discussion. Recently, the IP address has posted on my talk page, in much the same style as Gabriel, comments indicating that he also believes that I am absolutely obligated to respond to all questions asked of me, a belief which strikes me as being rather suspect. That IP has also edited, in much the same use of language as I have seen from Gabriel, at an RfC Gabriel started about me at Talk:Nontrinitarianism. I received word of the Draper identity at the AN/I thread I mention above. I realize that as a new admin my credentials are not necessarily the best, but I do believe that there is sufficient basis to think that the same person may be behind all identities. Also, in my RfA, I specifically stated that I could not forsee blocking anyone myself in the near future, and couldn't in any event given the apparent COI some would accuse me of. However, I am more than curious about the two new accounts. If my being involved in discussion with the party in question is an obstacle to this request, I have no objections to being told that directly, and apologize for the waste of your time in advance. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence


 * Comments

Comment Please include some diffs to show us exactly what you are talking about. — BQZip01 — talk 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Draper identity I am including based on the statement presented by another party on the administrator's noticeboard, linked to above. I have no firsthand knowledge of that, however, the new editor has according to another party entered into the fray at the Gliese 581 page and its talk page. Regarding the IP, I received this messsage, which is simply the restoration of comments I had earlier deleted from my talk page from Gabriel earlier, and which Gabriel had restored in an identical way here. There also seems to me, and this is a value judgement, similarities between the kinds of phrasing used by the IPhere and previous comments from Gabriel, although that is a gut feeling and not one I can immediately link to. The fact that the IP's only edits as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.132.6.8 here] also including a rather abstruse article on Planetary human habitability, which Gabriel had also edited as recently as January 23rd, and which he indicates by his user pages relates to a primary interest of his is I think remarkable. And the fact that the IP states in his comment on the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page that he had been "watching me for some time" but had seemingly never edited before today, as indicated here, is definitely unusual. I do however admit that based on rereading the IP's comments I cannot find any repetition or other comments which clearly directly indicate any identity between the two. I've never done this sort of thing before, and my apologies for not doing it very well. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries, just trying to make the point here. IMHO, I don't find these comments particularly disruptive. They are on your talk page and you essentially have the right to delete them at your leisure per WP:TALK, but he also has the right to add them to your page as part of a discussion. I too believe that the IP and user are one in the same, BUT, sockpuppetry goes beyond simply editing from an IP address and as a user (I've done that myself in an AfD and IfD, though I made it clear who was contributing). It must be something that is trying to get around policy (like avoiding WP:3RR or attempting to influence a vote. Quoting from WP:SOCK: "The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else. Multiple accounts are not for collusion, evasion, disruption, or other misuse." In short, an additional account must not be used maliciously. These diffs show a lack of understanding of WP policy/guidelines, but IMHO do not show any specific malice. As an interesting tidbit, someone can be disruptive and have multiple accounts, but not be guilty of WP:SOCK.
 * I will also concede he is treading on thin ice...
 * This may sound kind of blunt (just trying to cut to the chase), but have you bothered to ask him either user page if he is the same person?
 * As a tip, simpler diffs and simple sentences are easier to follow, such as:
 * User A did this edit followed by user B's identical and disruptive edit 5 minutes later to avoid WP:3RR:   . User A already blocked (see history) and User B should share in the same fate.
 * In short, I don't see an explicit violation of WP:SOCK at this time. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't think to ask the IP. The IP responded to an RfC against me, and was the first person to respond in agreement with Gabriel. On that basis, it would have undermined his own statements in support of his RfC to say that the person who agreed with him was him, and I couldn't see either address agreeing that they were the same person. Also, the IP said "we" at some point, indicating again that it was multiple people, and it wouldn't have helped that case to say he was in fact Gabriel. Lastly, Gabriel has explicitly stated earlier that he cannot trust the majority of editors here, presumably because they don't agree with his own theological opinions, and given the distrust of others he has displayed, and his demonstrable habit of attacking others, I couldn't see him saying the only person to date who has agreed with him was himself under, as it were, a different name. But, thank you for the responses and my apologies for any unnecessary difficulties I may have raised. Like I've said repeatedly, I've only been an admin for about two weeks and have never dealt with socks before. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if he basically violated the "one account, one vote" rule and admitted it, that is a clear violation. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am going to have a busy weekend with personal family matters and I hope this is not summarily closed without my having a chance to sift through the accusation points and refute them.

Secondly, I don't need to do any long research to come up with this quote of John Carter's suggestion that I make other accounts (Which is not an admission that I did, which if asked pointedly I would say I did not.), so this is what I recieved from him in his e-mail that I consider relevant: "This could be avoided, possibly (I don't know any internal doctrinal points here) by perhaps creating a new account under a name other than your own and indicating there exactly what belief system you do profess. That way, no outsider would necessarily be able to prove that the editor in question is in fact you." I immediatelty considered the possibility that he was trying to get me caught using a sockpuppet and refused the suggestion outright, saying so on his talkpage, which of course he has deleted. Diff.

Thirdly, I notice that I have not said so directly, so I should state, I don't know that IP address and I don't know the HenryDraper user account. And other than Edits on (two of/two users) the same articles as myself, I don't know what they are supposed to have in common with me: If I understand corretly, these two others are suspected as sock puppets of mine because they made edits within 5 minutes of eathother, which is not a direct reference to me or my account. Also, since this is visable and open to all users I don't see that this how this is automatically me in any way when all my contributions are visible to everyone, including John Carter let's not forget, and as such, anyone who felt like mimicking my edits for whatever reason could do so, including John Carter let's not forget (I'm tempted to create an account that mimics his edits to see how he likes it). This diff stood out to me because out of nowhere someone shows evidence that they are watching and is interested in what is going on, and I don't live in Texas: diff.

Fourthly, I don't deny that I have been envolved in a debate at the Nontrinitarianism article talkpage with C.Logan and John Carter. For me the hidden issue is bias: an alarm goes off in my head when I realize there are few Nontrinitarians interested in inproving the Nontrinitarianism Article (because they are off doing what real Christains are asked to do) and a the same time I see biased Trintarians impeding the improvement of the Nontrinitarianism Article. I'm talking about my view and modivations, if you want proof of it, I'll have to make time for it, and elsewhere. So I am at this talkpage, someone who believes in the article's content, and of course I am not going to be happy about biased Trinitarian impedance. I have accepted for a while now the specific level of precision that is required by these two users (nb: not there before them) and I have been observing since then, having given them more then they asked for interms of references, that they have just dropped it, showing that they were not really interested in the improvement of the article in the first place. But to say that I was trying to tip votes using sockpuppets is taking it too far. In fact I don't see that an issue related specifically to the article or and article topic was actaully remarked on by that IP address user. I mean to say that, though I don't condone that was expressed there, I don't see that there was a vote on an article issue cast by the remark and so I don't believe that it is a violation, as you say, of the one account one vote rule. (On the point of bias, COI, and duplicity, one diff is here: Diff.)

Fifthly, On the Draper account more specifically, I appreciate that it looks like a sockpuppet, but as I have said already I don't know the account and there are several instances in the Gliese 581 c talkpage of annonymous IP address making contraversial statements, but the point I would like to highlight is that this HenryDraper user has actually contradicted my clear statement of position to delete the paragraph, and so that would make for rather bad sockpuppeting if I were to use a (/said) sockpuppet to contradict myself. If I understand what I read there the HenryDraper user is making statement about (or forcing them to look at) other users lack of tact. I personally don't mind if everyone out there, annonymous or not, got on making points about policy in a direct manner. And on that note I think is is plainly biased of John Carter in his own world to be using an annonymous users comments (that affectively effectively show he is violating policy) to accuse me of something I did not do, so I quote: " 'watching me for some time' but had seemingly never edited before today, as indicated here, is definitely unusual." - I would say, as noted just above, unusual to John Carter who seems unfamiliar with the concept of anonymity. Of all the millions of Wikipedia users that wish to remain anonymous, I can not be made responsible for the comments of one against John Carter.

Sixthly, On what I believe is an attempt to show modivation, as I have said above, John Carter's impatiance with new users is well documented, even if I only quote my interactions with him, for example the trampling of the Wikipedia principle that says it is an "Edit Now" place, he should actively campaign against the use of said principle, instead of bashing every new user with the entire (probably 2 pounds or more) weight of the manual that would be the compilation of all Wikipedia policies. I should less implicitly express that aside from the lack of clarity (from my point of view, but I was the one spoken to) in what was required of me in terms of precision referencing for the Nontrinitarian article, there was no need for a sockpuppet for me to get done what was asked of me, which I have done. Further, I have to note somewhere that this was in my estimation modivated by simply the desire to impede, by Trinitarians, the improvement of the Nontrinitarian Article, as they have not bother to actually improve the article (mark date) since stopping me from adding anything that did not have a very specific reference, even after I provided said references and many other references, you would think that if they were sincerely interested in the articles inprovement that would have taken the many many relevant references (see Ref and ) that I complied in giving them and actually actively began improving the article. But no, they just go in circles and do not more than impede. So my modivations are not what really should be on trial, but since they are, I think that John Carter's continued antagonism, and anyones' anonymous response to that, says more about him than it does any need for a sockpuppet by me. I don't need a sockpuppet to comply as I already have with a clearer request for precise referencing for an addition to a list of Bible verses that where already there (both at the Nontrinitarian article and the Trinitarian article) without referencing. Where is the concommitant action that goes that all the impeding talk. To extend the point, the actions that I see as relevant are his adding himself as memeber of Nontrinitarian Workprojects (eg.Jehovah's Witnesses) and subscriber of Nontrinitarian newsletters only after I mentioned that I considered it evidence of his bias.

Seventhly,

I object to this badly patched together accusation itself on the principle that I have not been able to look at all the evidence cited/alluded to in it: I can not see said discussion, related to me, at this link for example, Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, nor do I know the IP address of the Draper user account, both of which need to be specific if they are to be used as evidence, or I could likewise use all of Wikipedia as my witness in the same general way. Also, I don't see the neutrality in John Carter talking about my conduct, when he contradicts himself in action all the time, telling others not to delete things on their talkpages and then deleting any incriminating questions that appear there, ignoring issues that are raised there by deleting them, and generally being duplicitous.

Eigthly,

John Carter's continued harping on good faith is contridicted by his very own words here "As per the statements at Wikipedia:Assume good faith, it is not required to assume good faith of individuals who have demonstrated bad faith" again continuely being duplicitous. I believe all of his reference to my distrust are exaggerated, continue to morph in strength from misquote to misquote, and are sufficiently addressed in/by my reasons and reasoning on my distrusting him.

Ninethly, 

and lasly I hope, I think that in the future John Carter should leave such accusations to people who know better what they are doing, and I think that he should as I quote him above "apologize for the waste of your time in advance" to all parties involved here.

(...Saving and Continuing...)

I was going to delete the directly above line but it seems that I could be falsely accused if I did,

So with that I will conclude my efforts here sign off and move on, over and out.

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement quoted was meant to imply that he could create an account to replace the current one, not to supplement it. It should also be noted that the above comment was included in the letter after comments in which I made it clear that the above named party might encounter obstacles if he were to edit using his true name if his church membership might be called into question and possibly revokable if he spoke of it to outsiders, as is allegedly done with members of the Iglesia ni Cristo from what I have heard, and that was the basis for suggesting using a different name, if Gabriel Velasquez is his true name, and that as such his own quotation is I believe a clear misrepresentation of the earlier conversation, by, to borrow a phrase from him, "using partial quotes and effectively taking my words out of context". It also should be noted that I have had extensive conversation with the above party in which he has indicated specifically that he on the basis of his own opinions will not trust most editors who do not agree with his nontrinitarian beliefs, whether they are otherwise trustworthy or not, which is a clear violation of AGF and not the best way to start editing in wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Responses to Gabriel above:
 * Gabriel's second point has been addressed by me above. I note that he refused to respond to the statement that that statement itself is at best a partial quote from me.
 * Regarding his third point, he seems to me to be accusing me of those edits. I should note that there is no basis barring abject paranoia to make such an assumption. Unless he can produce evidence to verify that those edits even remotely resemble any of my work, I have to consider that an at best off-topic comment.
 * Gabriel's fourth point once again, although this time more specifically, shows that he actively refuses to assume good faith, which has been his central problem all along. It has been pointed out to him as problematic before. And I would love to see how Gabriel can indicate that requesting he provide the sourcing required for all content, which is required by policy, and which he has regularly refused to do, is any way an impediment to the growth of the article. Once again, I see unsupported allegations of dishonesty based on his own refusal to assume good faith of anyone but himself. And, as he has been told before, his views, or anyone else's, are not appropriate content for any article, whether he chooses to believe that or not. All statements in articles must be verified from outside sources. The fact that he refuses to acknowledge this policy, which has been pointed out to him, is part of his problem.
 * Fifthly and sixthly, I was not the one who first raised the accusation about the Draper account. The fact that Gabriel has not yet learned that pages tend to be archived, and that the discussion linked to is archived, is arguably not the fault of anyone but perhaps himself. The discussion is now included on the 360th archive page, at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive360. However, as I indicated before, I included the Draper account name on the basis of another party referencing it there. And no one knows the IP address of the Draper editor. It would help, once again, if Gabriel himself did not raise points which are at best irrelevant to the proceedings, and actually directly responded to comments made, like those of mine above which he has still, to date, ignored in his later comments. His comments about "bashing every new user" clearly completely and utterly fail to reflect reality. I have tried to engage this editor in reasonable conversation, only to be told that, based on his own overriding distrust of everyone who disagrees with him on his own religious opinions, that he was not interested in doing anything other than his "own thing". When someone refuses to respond to reason, as Gabriel has consistently done, there is no option but to seek to enforce the rules.
 * Regarding another of Gabriel's "points" above, he appears to think that I added my name to the JW project after speaking with him. In fact, as noted from that page, I was in fact earlier a member, but resigned in 2007, for reasons which escape me at the moment. The statement that I added my name after speaking with him is, so far as I can tell, counterindicated by reality. Such a clearly false statement I think does more to indicate his own lack of awareness of, well, reality, than just about anything else I can think of. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

I find this presentation hard to follow. If there is abusive sock puppetry, it is best to present a concise selection of diffs showing the most egregious examples. I don't see that here. Additionally, some of the links don't work, because they are not permanent links. To the right are help links that show how to harvest permanent links. I am going to close this case with no action. Additionally, to all parties: if a user is impolite to you, the best way to stop them is to ignore and slow revert their comments. Jehochman Talk 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)