Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davefelmer/Archive

02 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Editing the same page with the same agenda while logged out. It looks like a WP:DUCK to me. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 20:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Admin action needed - . Please, block both Davefelmer and the IP for 3 days for disruptive logged-out editing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The suspected sockpuppet registered themselves as an account only today. Since then, the first (and thus far only) edit they have made is on Talk:Birds of Prey (2020 film), where Davefelmer is a frequent editor due to an RfC in which they find particular interest. In relation, Davefelmer and I have been discussing how there has been no consensus out of said RfC on their talk page, after which ToeFungii appeared and supported Davefelmer's points. Futhermore, both ToeFungii and Davefelmer also use the term "balance" to summarize/explain their points, as seen here, here, and here. KyleJoan talk 05:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, both users used the term "picture" in their respective analyses of the Birds of Prey (2020 film) article, as seen in the first diff above as well as in this edit summary. KyleJoan talk  15:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ToeFungii is also comparable to, an IP address under which Davefelmer was guilty of sockpuppetry, in the way they both forgo the use of apostrophes per the first diff referenced and this edit summary. KyleJoan talk  08:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are three semantically similar statements–two by Davefelmer, one by ToeFungii–in relation to Birds of Prey (2020 film) that I believed were suspicious:
 * . . . the same can be applied for the other measures of performance to create a balanced piece with all perspectives addressed.
 * . . . expanded . . . to show both sides of the coin rather than only incorporating certain evidence that doesnt paint a full picture.
 * . . . then I support adding #1 as the two present a balanced picture. KyleJoan talk 09:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Davefelmer and Toefungii also seem to both have a penchant for deleting user warnings.  KyleJoan talk 02:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, I mean first the use of apostrophes compared to a half-decade old IP, then the coincidental shared use of an extremely random and common word in different posts?? Plus I don't think you understand what 'penchant' means, I looked at the user's page and that was literally the only removal of said type of content which wasn't even a user warning like you said. You literally went through my five-year account history and said user's, saw both happened to delete talkpage content once upon a time, phrased the other user's as a warning to make it match up with what you linked for me (which was your warning) and want to submit this as evidence? Hahaha I mean jeez, on top of the fact that tons of editors delete content from their talkpages all the time and it wouldn't mean anything anyways, do you still not see how stupid you're looking? When you first opened this thing up it could at least have looked like a long-shot attempt to stall a consensus building on that RfC that went against your stance. Petty and not in good faith granted, but whatever. But you seem to be spending your time sitting there and desperately searching day-by-day through the two account histories to constantly come back and make the most over-the-top reaches ever to try and feign a connection (Personal attack removed) . What's next, "both users suspiciously have an 'e' in both of their usernames"? How about "Coincidentally, both users have made posts within the last 72 hours that similarly contain the use of 'is' and 'your' within their comment or analysis"? Lol Davefelmer (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * I'm struggling to even dignify this level of reaching with anything resembling a respectable response. It's simply outright laughable and I invite any relevant people to conduct any background/IP checks or otherwise (not exactly sure how it works) that they like. I mean, user KyleJoan has done no more than simply look at a few of my responses, find the most random and commonly used words possible that happen to be shared with those in this one response from another user (which as I click on his link above I see is not his only post on Wikipedia, as KyleJoan states) and from that he's tried to forge a "link" between them that somehow makes it proof of one user being another. I am fairly certain that if I cross-checked every user engaged in movie articles with the words "box office" and "cinema" for instance, I would find plenty of sockpuppetry myself! This simply strikes me as sour grapes because as KyleJoan notes, we've been engaged in an RfC where an outright consensus on a point of contention has not been reached yet and another user siding with my side of the argument would tip the scales so to speak. I respect that KyleJoan is very passionate about his points of view and will fight them to the last but he must accept that if the views of other editors go against his, it doesn't mean that there is foul play involved and I hope that any investigation will return with the correct and fair outcome. Davefelmer (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you felt the need to prove that the suspected sockpuppet has made more edits since I opened the investigation. It's even more interesting that you refer to them as a male. KyleJoan talk  04:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mate, do you honestly not see how embarrassing this is? And nobody felt the need to do literally anything, I simply looked at the user's page above to make sure you were not forcing a narrative any further, which you were. And I simply think of most editors here as 'he' unless shown otherwise, it's just a force of habit. I presume 'ToeFungii' would be the name of a male user, rightly or wrongly I guess. And if he (OR SHE) isn't, it doesn't mean anything within the context of this investigation anyways. Why don't you just let it be looked at and await the verdict if you are so sure there's sockpuppetry at play? Davefelmer (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (non-CU/clerk/etc. comment) I agree that it's extremely suspicious that a brand-new user's first edit is to jump into a talk page RfC, but I don't see sufficient behavioral evidence to link these two accounts. The two users' writing styles are rather different (though I recognize that could be intentionally faked), they only have one significant interaction (on the aforementioned talk page), and a couple of small word choices is not sufficient to prove a link. Of course, it could be meatpuppetry, but with only one real data point, that would be nigh-impossible to prove. creffett (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How about the fact that both users have the same style of article linking?  KyleJoan talk 17:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If only you understood the unprecedented amount of cringe I feel whenever I see these. I mean, do you honestly not feel embarrassed? Whats next, "both users also suspiciously end all their sentences with a period, and on TWO seperate occasions within the last month both similarly deviated from this norm to end sentences with exclamation points"?
 * As I said before, I understand you are very passionate about the positions you take but you are not some kind of fountain of knowledge that cannot be disagreed with where the question must immediately turn to something fishy going on whenever it happens, and the way you tried to create some of the most over-the-top and comical reaches I've ever seen to try and paint a picture of foul play just so you didn't have to yield in a stance simply came off as very petty and not acting in good faith. Davefelmer (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There is not enough concrete evidence here to support a connection between these two accounts. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After ToeFungii registered as a user on April 5, the first edit they made was on, where Davefelmer was a frequent editor due to an RfC in which they were involved. In relation, Davefelmer and I had been discussing how there had not been a consensus out of said RfC, after which ToeFungii appeared and supported Davefelmer's stances.

Davefelmer later entered a similar but unrelated content dispute on, during which they were reverted multiple times by multiple editors. ToeFungii then began editing that article out of nowhere, supported Davefelmer's stance once again, and subsequently began a talk page discussion to resolve a content dispute in which they originally had no part.

Next was a discussion in relation to, which has led to an RfC involving Davefelmer proposing a paragraph to include in the lead section. Seeing that ToeFungii's recent editing has mainly centered around anti-vandalism, imagine my surprise when they responded to the RfC and supported Davefelmer's stance yet again.

Both Davefelmer and ToeFungii have also. ..
 * Used identical vocabularies during talk page discussions, examples include:
 * . . . the same can be applied for the other measures of performance to create a balanced piece with all perspectives addressed.
 * . . . expanded . . . to show both sides of the coin rather than only incorporating certain evidence that doesnt paint a full picture.
 * . . . then I support adding #1 as the two present a balanced picture.
 * First, I thank all for a productive discussion and collaboration.
 * I'm glad we were able to have a productive discussion and reach a fair conclusion.

Note: Davefelmer previously indicated that they would welcome a CheckUser investigation, stating,. . . I invite any relevant people to conduct any background/IP checks or otherwise (not exactly sure how it works) that they like. KyleJoan talk 02:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Utilized identical styles of article-linking.
 * Added bare citations.
 * Had moments of incivility.

. KyleJoan talk 12:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' To say I'm dumbfounded is an understatement. To try and respond is confusing as I'll ask KJ to change from bullets to numbered bullets so that it's easier to comment upon. KJ makes MANY mischaracterizations and misrepresentations of the facts above.

ToeFungii (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) KJ makes a point to say there was Dark Phoenix (DP) collaboration, but DaveFilmer(DF) has not responded to the RfC DESPITE my inviting them to on his talk page here 31 days ago. So why would I invite him, and he responds on his talk page not being in total agreement here, and he never participates in the actual RfC. So the whole Dark Phoenix is a complete misstatement of the facts by KJ and instead an attempt to be misleading.
 * 2) KJ says I supported DF's Birds of Prey position, but neglects to mention I disagreed with him here. KJ chooses to be misleading and misstates the facts again.
 * 3) KJ misstates the Charlie's Angels RfC by implying Davefilmer did it when KyleJoan actually did the RfC here. Again another attempt by KJ to mislead and misstate the facts.
 * 4) With respect to "identical styles of article-linking", that's how I did it before I learned how to do it better as I've done: here, here, here, here, and on a ton more I could provide going back weeks. DaveFilmer however still does links the same way as in here, a fact that KyleJoan knows because the DF example I just gave is a CA discussion between KJ and DF a week ago, but KJ neglected to mention that and rather instead mislead and misstate the facts.
 * 5) Not sure what is meant by "incomplete citations". There's the "cite your sources" button at the bottom that inserts ref wikicode and you put the link there - that's incomplete? Then everybody does it including KJ who again is just misstating the facts.
 * 6) What's funny is I have 3 RfCs Here 13 days old, Here 13 days old, and here 31 days old where DaveFilmer has not contributed and on the first two I could use a supporting vote. So if we were/are the same person, why wouldn't I/we have double contributed? Again, KJ neglects to mention this and misstates the facts.
 * 7) KJ says I supported DaveFilmer's stance on Charlie's Angels (CA). There are only two options, so I took one and it happened to be the opposite of KJ, but the discussion has been on-going for a week with 8 people and the RfC is only 4 days old and has 26 more days to go. There was no pressure that something was going to be decided imminently, but is everyone that sides against KJ going to be accused?
 * 8) Three of the bullets about "identical" vocabularies are relating two words that aren't used "identically" if it takes three sentences to make a connection. And the word "balance" is on WP:NPOV nineteen times so obviously it would be used in a discussion involving WP:NPOV. Another attempt by KJ to mislead and misstate the facts.
 * 9) With respect to "productive discussion," are two words amongst MANY so one would think there would be more examples and I welcome KJ to provide them. This exact phrase is on WP:BEYOND and WP:Cool and used here and here amongst many more. If we were the same person, I'd think more than two words that would have overlapped when trying to express a point of view and I had a lot of words while DF is much less loquacious. So again, a red herring and misleading.
 * 10) With respect to my incivility, yes I was, but at the time didn't think it to be uncivil. It was on my first day of contributing. The reason I did it is minor because I did do it, but it was in response to a user that reverted me twice when I was trying to fix a problem sentence. Before my second submission I sought and received help from the Teahouse and my second edit was exactly as what was given to me there by an admin. So when the person again reverted me without any explanation, I asked why they were so intractable which I thought was a reasonable question but now know that could be considered rude. After this 2nd revert, two other users criticized this person for biting me and ultimately the sentence was in fact changed by another user very close to what I had originally submitted. To see where another user came to my defense for having been accused of incivility please see here. But that's the only negative comment that I'm aware of that's been made about me and welcome KJ to show differently.
 * 11) KJ appears to simply have it out for anyone that takes a different opinion on content and from scanning their history they can be very condescending and regularly does not put any reason in the edit summary. Reverting without an explanation can be considered uncivil unless clear vandalism yet KJ has dozens of reverts without an edit summary.
 * 12) I've responded to about 6-7 RfCs (that I don't believe Davefelmer or KyleJoan have commented on) but because I respond to a RfC I'm interested in I'm smeared?
 * 13) I'm not DaveFilmer who I suspect based on using the word "Mate" is from Australia and I'm in the US so our ip's will not be anywhere close although I guess they could be anywhere.


 * Not this bullshit again. This guy opened the exact same comical case like a month and a half ago. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Davefelmer/Archive#05_April_2020. Literally the exact same rubbish! I'm honestly in disbelief, I guess I'll just reply the exact same way as last time...
 * KyleJoan has done no more than simply look at a few of my responses, find the most random and commonly used words possible that happen to be shared with those in a random response from ToeFungii and from that he's tried to forge a "link" between them that somehow makes it proof of one user being another. I am fairly certain that if I cross-checked every user engaged in movie articles with the words "box office" and "cinema" for instance, I would find plenty of sockpuppetry myself! Whats next, "both users also suspiciously end all their sentences with a period, and on TWO seperate occasions within the last month both similarly deviated from this norm to end sentences with exclamation points"? I mean, he's literally trying to say two users are the same person because they individually and randomly used the word "discussion".....on discussion talkpages. I am genuinely struggling not to laugh.
 * Anyways, just like last time, KyleJoan is entirely manipulating the facts to create his own false narrative and agenda. The edits that I made on Dark Phoenix were at first reverted but then kept following discussions with the editors in question. My history will show this. ToeFungii came onto the page later wanting to make additional changes, proposed changes that I personally went AGAINST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dark_Phoenix_(film)#please_see_changes_at_dark_phoenix after he invited me on my talkpage to give my input https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davefelmer#started_discussion_about_Dark_Phoenx_on_talk_page_re:box_office_bomb where I once again stated that I DID NOT side with his proposed additions, and only then did he go and start an RfC over it where six out of six contributing users none of which were I or KyleJoan sided with his additions so they were implemented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dark_Phoenix_(film)#RfC:_Should_Dark_Phoenix_(film)_contain_a_statement_regarding_its_box_office_failure?. With Charlie's Angels, KyleJoan and I started an RfC over content on the page that I posted on the wikiproject film page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#RfC_at_Talk:Charlie's_Angels_(2019_film) asking other contributors to get involved. ToeFungii is one of many users that happens to frequent that page so he likely just saw the RfC notice on there and came from there to join in, just like another user likely did that joined the discussion to give his input that had previously had no part in the debate nor frequented the page in question. But of course KyleJoan won't mention that, because that user sided with his version in the RfC! And you don't see me opening an SPI over it based on the fact that they both have an 'a' in their usernames and both used the words "because" and "potentially" in edits over the past two weeks or some shit.
 * At the end of the day, KyleJoan talk is a grade-A bullshitter, he's putting 2+2 together and getting 1086 and this is the second time he's done it in a month and a half simply because users happened to disagree with him on his precious RfCs. When you factor in the fact that he has a LENGTHY history of being problematic with other editors over this sort of thing as well as stalking the edits of editors he has disagreements with AND generally exhibiting harassive behaviour on the project, all of which he has done to me, if action isn't able to be taken against him here per WP:BOOMERANG when this garbage is thrown out again, I will be taking him to the administrators noticeboard for WP:HARRASS. Davefelmer (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same guy, I also suspect that User:Armegon is also Davefelmer, just my gut telling me that based on the same type of evidence you've pointed to above. You really need a CU check I think and in the previous archive discussion the admin failed to do that which I thought was an oversight. There is an odd amount of cross-conversation which seems to indicate odd behaviour here. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa! Don't appreciate the accusation of me being a sock-puppet for another user just because I agreed with the guy on some points. I don't know what beef you guys have but keep me out of it! I have never been in contact with KJ, Davefelmer, Govvy, or ToeFungii until I decided to contribute to the Charlie's Angels 2019 article. You can see where Davefelmer and I differ based on our writing styles/grammars, choice of articles to edit, and method of editing. I'm sure there's some method to narrow down who's a sock-puppet or not. I'm game for using it to clear my name. I have nothing to hide. Don't forget, I was in support of KJ's rfc option on the Charlie's Angels talk page, which Davefelmer was against initially, and I was also in support of KJ's initial proposal. Armegon (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. Firstly how is 'MY GUT' any kind of evidence, secondly I think we've legit only interacted on that one article! This administrative process is becoming a mess, the guy below who's administering it basically admitted it makes no sense we're socks as ToeFungii and I have edited in quick succession before, don't overlap in the number of edits we do and Armegon and I aren't even in the same timezone or something. Yet instead of this guy thinking I was open to a CU because it's obviously bull, he's thrown out a hot take conspiracy theory that it might be a 'red herring' and a 'work/home' thing when we're in the middle of a pandemic and I can't even go into my office again yet! And even if I could, my man down there thinks it's more likely that someone would be travelling around a city during a pandemic to edit Wikipedia articles than simply telling the truth. It's almost a joke. Davefelmer (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Glad to know I'm not alone in my suspicions. KyleJoan talk 12:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
 
 * Ugh. It's clear something is going on here. Based on their first month of editing, ToeFungii is on track to hit 30,000 edits in their first year.  That's insane, but doesn't necessarily imply socking.  There's a lot of commonality in the timeline report, but there's also some questions there.  For example, on 26 April 2020, Toe and Dave alternated edits several times in quick succession on Talk:Dark Phoenix (film).  If somebody was socking, that seems unlikely what they would do.  One commonality from their timecards (Davefelmer, ToeFungii) is they are both quiet from 0800-1400 UTC, but that could be nothing more than they live in the same time zone.  There was a suggestion that Armegon might be another sock, but their timecard shows a very different pattern, so I'm thinking not.  Overall, I'm inclined to endorse for CU (but not with a high level of confidence).  The fact that one of them is inviting it is sort of a red herring.  They may be intentionally editing from different locations (and in fact their timecards hint at a work/home split) and thus be confident the IPs won't match.  In which case, a finding of unrelated won't mean much.  But I think it's still worth looking.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Davefelmer and ToeFungii are ❌. I see no justification for checking.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to :
 * . Please create a case for Mikethewhistle-original with this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Unclear what you're asking. Should I rename this to be Mikethewhistle-original, or split out the users that you blocked into a separate case? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , create a separate case for Mikethewhistle-original with the socks Bbb23 has listed above. They are separate to this SPI. Then you can close this SPI with no action since they're unrelated (which is the furthest from confirmed you can possibly get). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . Please create a case for Mikethewhistle-original with this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Unclear what you're asking. Should I rename this to be Mikethewhistle-original, or split out the users that you blocked into a separate case? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , create a separate case for Mikethewhistle-original with the socks Bbb23 has listed above. They are separate to this SPI. Then you can close this SPI with no action since they're unrelated (which is the furthest from confirmed you can possibly get). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . Please create a case for Mikethewhistle-original with this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Unclear what you're asking. Should I rename this to be Mikethewhistle-original, or split out the users that you blocked into a separate case? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , create a separate case for Mikethewhistle-original with the socks Bbb23 has listed above. They are separate to this SPI. Then you can close this SPI with no action since they're unrelated (which is the furthest from confirmed you can possibly get). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . Please create a case for Mikethewhistle-original with this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Unclear what you're asking. Should I rename this to be Mikethewhistle-original, or split out the users that you blocked into a separate case? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , create a separate case for Mikethewhistle-original with the socks Bbb23 has listed above. They are separate to this SPI. Then you can close this SPI with no action since they're unrelated (which is the furthest from confirmed you can possibly get). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)