Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jessika Folkerts

User:Jessika Folkerts

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

IP 62.235.215.231 was active in AfDs pertaining to a walled garden of three articles Articles for deletion/The Social Capital Foundation (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Patrick Hunout, Articles for deletion/The International Scope Review (and/or in creating the articles). The User:Jessika Folkerts account appeared during the AfDs, for example in !voting Don't delete in the Patrick Hunout AfD here, IP 62.235.215.231 then appears in that same AfD to !vote Don't delete and copyedit Jessika Folkerts's !vote in the same edit here. The recently blocked User:TSCF seems another 62.235.215.231 handle. Note that I neglected to save contribution histories from the deleted articles, IIRC more SPAs may be found therein.
 * Evidence

62.235.215.231 may be considered the sockmaster, but it seemed more appropriate to list under the active registered account. Note also that User:Jessika Folkerts has been prodding articles associated with editors that had expressed "delete" opinions in the AfD's. Prodded User:Crusio's home institution here (nd then AfDed here) and my bio here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

Reply from Jessika Folkerts: This "accusation" emanates from a user whose article is suspected to present a notability problem. Sorry but you must fight with fair weapons. I am not a sockpuppet. I have made various edits and will continue to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Shalom: There's a very good chance that these are the same user. In addition to Pete.Hurd's evidence, I noticed that TSCF edited the article on Amitai Etzioni to add a promotional external link in 2006. Jessika Folkerts edited the same article with her second edit, on June 11, 2008. This alone doesn't prove much, but combined with the AFD coordination it's very hard to reach a different conclusion. That said, if TSCF remains blocked then the situation is resolved, but in that case Jessika Folkerts needs to acknowledge a conflict of interest and not deny being a sock. Because she does deny it, and she may be telling the truth, I will do an RFCU. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Nsk92 Agree with Pete Hurd, the likelihood of sockpuppetry is considerable here. Moreover, User:Jessika Folkerts has engaged in clear WP:POINT violations (which may also constitute harassment). She has nominated CNRS, an article about a major French governmental agency, for deletion, apparently in retaliation against User:Crusio who voted "delete" in Articles for deletion/The Social Capital Foundation (2nd nomination) for the article that User:Jessika Folkerts created (CNRS is Crusio's home institution, as the CV at his user page confirms). She also nominated for deletion the article Peter L. Hurd, apparently in retaliation for Pete.Hurd's delete vote in Articles for deletion/The Social Capital Foundation (2nd nomination). This is unacceptable conduct by User:Jessika Folkerts. Nsk92 (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher declined to run a checkuser, saying that even if it would come back positive, COI is not a blockable offense. Since TSCF is username-blocked, and Folkerts has not edited since June 20, I'll let it pass with a note on her talk page. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions