Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Folgertat/Archive

10 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Folgertat, Turtlepump, Whitescorp34 and Raveblack all made their first edits since mid-2013 this week, and all voted keep in this AfD. Icecreamed is a recently created account and has only made edits to the AfD and the main article involved. LM2000 (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I have had this account since February of 2013. Before then, I made what few edits I have made without an account, as it was mostly proofreading (which is admittedly what most of my few edits since registering this account have been). There are reasons for why my edits have been mostly proofreading and for why I have not edited anything before now since mid-2013: I do a lot more reading than I do contributing, and I do not like the editing culture that has been cultivated around here, for personal reasons. I also keep my editing to pages on subjects that I have some interest in (and feel that I can help improve with what little I can contribute), and CHIKARA just happens to be one of those interests. I have had edits on each of the season articles before the other four who are part of this accusation came forth, to make sure that each article reads well and to remove typos. I have never had any contact with the other four who are part of this accusation, I do not know who they are, and I have never sockpuppeted in my life. RaveBlack (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that this user responded to me on my talk page and stated that they were not meatpuppeting. Members of the Professional Wrestling Wikiproject suspected either a COI issue or sockpuppetry because the behavior of these accounts, which all do not have very many edits to their name, is bizarre and nearly identical.LM2000 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Could a clerk take a look at this? It's been a few days and the behaviour is suspicious to me as well. Thank you. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 05:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is holding up a debate on an article for deletion. --BabsChikara (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted on Clerk Mark Arsten's talk page, he said might be helpful to add some diffs to the SPI and explain in more detail why you think the accounts are being controlled by the same person, rather than being individuals who had the same topic watchlisted etc - instead of diffs, I'd like to comment on the accounts.
 * All five accounts have no user page. The four "sockpuppets" effectively had no talk pages either. I highly doubt that they were individuals who had the same topic watchlisted - Chikara Season 11 was created on 5 February 2014. Actually this whole Chikara "controversy" came about due to the creation of yearly Chikara season articles. Chikara Season One was created on 1 February 2014 and some members of WT:PW proposed deleting all those Chikara season articles on 2 February 2013. Folgertat's last edit before 1 February 2014 was 17 June 2013. Turtlepump's last edit before 1 February 2014 was 17 June 2013. RaveBlack's last edit before 1 February 2014 was 15 August 2013. Whitescorp34's last edit before 1 February 2014 was 22 October 2011. Icecreamed was created on 7 February 2014. How did so many inactive "editors" suddenly come to life and vote keep for an article that was newly created? Folgertat is the only account above 100 edits, and yet still below 200 edits. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 12:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A few new accounts voting in an AfD is one thing. The fact that most of these accounts have been around for a year but returned from a long absence all at the exact same time to edit the same brand new article and then vote in that articles AfD is what WT:PW finds suspicious.LM2000 (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at it now, I really only commented on how I believed at the time that the sources were valid to include and how the article could be cut down if necessary but how I thought it'd be a shame to lose that information. I actually never voted. RaveBlack (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't really voting in an AfD, it's building towards a consensus. You made your first ever edits in a deletion discussion in this one and you were clearly in support of keeping.LM2000 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on were. I actually don't have much of an opinion either way at this point. Looking at the AfD afterward led me to believe that votes needed to be clearly labeled, and I now realize that I probably should have studied how these discussions work before I commented. Additionally, regarding the indentation issue below, this was force of habit on my part. I am a more frequent contributor to TVTropes, so I automatically defaulted to the asterisk method of indentation, since I use it a lot more often. I apologize if that caused any confusion regarding any of my comments, and I know not to do that now. (If needed, I will provide what I can about my IP address upon request.) RaveBlack (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional Evidence
 * In 2011 Turtlepump and Folgertat made back-to-back edits on Dave Taylor (wrestler). Considering that all of these accounts have less than 200 edits (this was made the first day Turtlepump started editing), the fact that these accounts overlapped before (over two years ago) is interesting.
 * Whitescorp34, Turtlepump, and Folgertat returned on February 7/8 and immediately jumped into a handful of AfDs.
 * The users had problems with indenting their comments in the AfD, leading to a very lengthy discussion which was very hard to read.LM2000 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Looks to be enough evidence to warrant a check. The focus (almost obsession) with AFDs for new accounts is fairly convincing that these aren't new and are related. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * RaveBlack appears to be ❌. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts tagged and blocked indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * RaveBlack appears to be ❌. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts tagged and blocked indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * RaveBlack appears to be ❌. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts tagged and blocked indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts tagged and blocked indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)