Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Der Statistiker/Archive

05 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The suspected single-edit sockpuppet appeared to make the same revert as the 'sockmaster' in order to 'win' a revert war (in which I will not partake). This could also be WP:MEAT, but I doubt this due to the short time between reverts. THE PROMENADER  18:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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

This is yet again another accusation by The Promenader to try to have me banned (because I disagree with him). Sigh... He's also used repeatedly the Administror's Noticeboard in recent weeks for the same purpose. Aren't there some admins out there who could tell him that making accusations against other editors on average twice a week is not civil?

Regarding this particular "accusation", I'm an editor at various wikipedias (in other languages), and I was accidentally logged in at en.wikipedia with the account from another wikipedia. Apparently en.wikipedia automatically logs someone in under the account name of whichever other wikipedia the person has been checking last, which is a very annoying functionality (I've never seen that happening in other language wikipedias). Der Statistiker (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, no, the sockpuppet investigation was my first time opening a complaint on any admin-related board since at least five years. And concerning this affair, what else was one to think? THE PROMENADER  20:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And how do you call this? Cleverly making some indirect accusations on the Admin's Noticeboard, instead of going to the Incidents Noticeboard to make a formal complaint and leave a note on the talk page of the people you're accusing. This weasel way of making accusations without really making them formally, of insinuating things without naming people, and without even letting them know on their talk pages, is frankly uncivil and leads to the degraded ambiance in the Paris talk pages. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the complaint. I did move it back onto the board after it was inadvertantly archived though. The other complaints (namely about you) muddled the debate so (in your link) I'm trying to focus the discussion. BTW, my last of few comments there were 'let's let him off and close'… I'm anything but devious, so please stop trying to make me look that way: an 'off-topic' ad hominem attack on another contributor isn't an answer for your own behavior. THE PROMENADER  21:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

For a long time, Der Statistiker has been pushing his agenda aggressively, and has been warned repeatedly by different admins for his behavior. While I'd like to assume good faith, it's hard to do so in this case. Surely DerStatistiker must have realized he used another account at some point, so given that he comes out and admits it only after a sockpuppet investigation has been launched is good reason to doubt his explanation above.Jeppiz (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, I explained it on the talk page of the template BEFORE The Promenader kindly opened this sockpuppet investigation. The same The Promenader who has been repeatedly warned by the admins too for his behavior. Let's also note that Jeppiz is not really neutral here considering his comments on the Paris talk page (same applies to Gilderien). Der Statistiker (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I didn't see your 'excuse' until after I opened this, and I'm hardly a bad-faith editor, so stop trying so deperately hard to make it seem so. Again, attacking me doesn't help your case. THE PROMENADER  07:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, so DerStatistiker admitted it after being caught redhanded but before the sockpuppet investigation was launched. A very minor detail. The fact that DerStatistiker did not bring it up before someone else did is what matters.Jeppiz (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Der Stat your other account is only active on fr-wiki, and the reverts happened without you making a single edit there in between.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Another very kind editor interested in having me banned for editorial disagreement on the Paris talk page. FYI, fr.wikipedia uses UTC+2, whereas en.wikipedia uses UTC+0, at least on my computer. So 19:12 on fr.wikipedia = 17:12 on en.wikipedia. Der Statistiker (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: I don't think that's going to happen as it's obvious that this user has/had many names/accounts across wikipedia. THE PROMENADER  06:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC) @Rschen7754: This contributor's behaviour/terminology choice/article focus is ~eerily~ like another (practically inactive since 2009), but it's not sockpuppetry - is that an issue for here? I think the user's two names above, and his failure to comply with/answer your request, already speaks volumes. I posted my comment because I saw this issue still open. THE PROMENADER  06:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * …but if you're going to get an answer, you'll get one now. THE PROMENADER  07:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I make one edit in the Paris aire urbaine talk page (here), and surprise, surprise, just 7 hours later, ThePromenader, who hadn't made any comments here since September 7, makes some new disgusting accusations. Isn't that some form of harassment? Apparently the guy is determined to silence the people who disagree with him in those articles. Frankly uncivil. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Nope, it's not a meatpuppet. It is ✅ that both accounts are the same. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been watching a dispute at Talk:Paris about choice of photos that has led to a surprising amount of hostility. See [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive252#Help_with_Template_move this AN thread from late August] for one of the manifestations. My suggestion is an indefinite block of User:Pointois and a two-week block of User:Statistiker. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Still thinking about what response is best, given Der Statistiker's response above. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to above users: Discussions not directly relating to SPI will not be taken into account. (content issues etc) NativeForeigner Talk 09:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the account Pointois had the connection publicly disclosed on the userpage, I think it would go a long way towards resolving this. Rschen7754 05:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * such as? --Rschen7754 06:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. I don't see any evidence of abuse of multiple accounts here. There may be other issues, but SPI is not the place to resolve them. Though Der Statistiker, I would advise you to disclose the connection on Pointois' userpage. Rschen7754 06:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)