Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Foldedwater/Archive

Evidence submitted by Yann
I find the contributions for this new account very surprising. I suspect this is an old user creating an new account for the sole purpose to vote several times, or to hide contributions. Yann (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Yann (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.


 * What is it I am supposed to say? There is and there will be no other vote in that nomination (the featured picture candidate linked below) or any other done by the same user as Foldedwater (meaning not only the account but the real person behind). Is that what is needed? People really use all resources at hand to contest an "oppose". I wonder what could happen if phone numbers and addresses were available for all users. I could be waited around some corner to beat me up for a vote in Wikipedia. Come on, I only entered and gave my opinion in those nominations that were more trivial to decide for me. In the prettiest I vote "support" in that one of a man with the man from behind I voted "oppose" and in a delist that didn't look good to me I voted for "delist". There should be, of course, some evil purpose behind otherwise I would vote "oppose" in that nomination I imagine. Foldedwater (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * pending further evidence from Yann, and (preferably) comments from the accused. Yann, while I appreciate that it's odd for a user to dive straight in at Featured picture candidates, I don't really see that you've presented enough evidence at this time for a check on this user. Please point out who they might be a sock of and where they have potentially violated WP:SOCK, it'd also be good to see some links to anywhere that the user has demonstrated an experienced understanding of wiki-markup or the way in which wikipedia functions. Although it's true that it's not fishing per se to check an account without any other suspected accounts, such cases do generally require more evidence than the conventional ones. Also, just for the interest of transparency, I'd like to draw attention to Featured picture candidates/Rajagopal speaking to 25,000 people, 2007 (although it's not necessary to discuss that candidate on this SPI page any further than just to note it's existence as I have done ). Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't edit much on English WP. I am usually a contributor on Commons and Wikisource. So it is quite difficult for me to find to whom this account might be related among the thousands of contributors here. Yann (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be blunt here. Foldedwater, have you ever edited under another username or IP? T. Canens (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * . Without evidence of actual account abuse, checkuser is inappropriate here. The only other accounts I see voting on those FPC's appear to be regulars there, and there's no reason why multiple accounts would be at all useful in those cases; they're largely unanimous. While it is unusual for a new user to immediately involve themselves in these areas, the comments being posted aren't indicative of someone who's involved themselves before; you'll note the regulars are spouting acronyms left and right, whereas Foldedwater's comments are all along the lines of "looks awesome!" If there is a specific account that you think may be related to this user, and have evidence to back that claim up, then checkuser may be needed, but fishing is a very boring sport. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * With only one user, nothing to block/look at. Closing. -- DQ.alt (t)  (e)   19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)