Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chateaufalaise/Archive

Report date June 26 2009, 05:12 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by CJ DUB

This case arose from a minor edit disagreement on a fairly obscure page Château de Falaise, relating to a monument in France. I (User:CJ DUB), made some suggestions on the talk page of the article Talk:Château de Falaise, May 2007. More recently, I made what I believed to be constuctive factual edits relating to the recent history of the monument, which has proven to be highly controversial. The matter at hand relates to the restoration of the monument (1982-1997), which in 2005 culminated in a court case and criminal charges for the architect, Bruno Decaris and one other person. . My first edits relating to this occured in July 2007.

On June 17, 2009 following very little activity on the article, User: Chateaufalaise, an employee of the monument made the following edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Falaise&diff=296967645&oldid=281068117 The edits appeared to be a POV/fancruft style entry, with the employee’s opinion clearly evident in the uncited text. One key matter was the user’s assertion that the controversial restoration had been in complete compliance with the Venice Charter, despite the court case’s rather contrary findings. In essence it seemed the user was trying to create a more sanitzed version of events while ignoring key facts, calling them falsehoods.

I made the following edit which cited international opinion and mentioned the court case and charges, in keeping with reporting the recent history of the monument: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Falaise&diff=next&oldid=297138477

Not surprisingly an argument ensued on the talk page, a including a few reverts and accusations of slander and of myself having an “agenda”. The User: Chateaufalaise could not accept any opinion other than their own, but unfortunately did not present references to support the facts. Each revert removed my text, with the reference about the 2005 court case. Significantly User: Chateaufalaise, only had an contribution history relating to the Château de Falaise article.

On June 23, 2009 ErnestLeBarbare started commenting on the talk page for the article, giving wholehearted support to User: Chateaufalaise, the aforementioned employee of Chateau de Falaise (he stated his affiliation on the talk page). ErnestLeBarbare also took time to reiterate the puppet master’s view that my references were not verifiable and had "an agenda". A check of the contributions of ErnestLeBarbare revealed no wiki activity except the edits favouring the employee’s POV on the article talk page. This led me to suspect sock puppetry by User: Chateaufalaise.

I believe there may be a larger problem with conflict of interest given that an employee of the monument is making biased edits and sanitizing the monument’s recent history. However, the sock puppet issue should be dealt with as soon as possible. Thanks for your time, CJ DUB (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I have notified and  of this request for checkuser. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested by CJ DUB (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Notified nominator on specifying the appropriate code letter. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorsing CheckUser request; both SPA only editing one article. While speech patterns are dissimilar, intentions are identical.--Aervanath (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Inprogress -- Avi (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are related:

-- Avi (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the sock (ErnestLeBarbare) and gave a warning to Chateaufalaise. Icestorm815 •  Talk  04:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)