Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francparler/Archive

01 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This all involves the Frédéric Bourdin article. In July 2012, the IP began making edits to the article. He identified himself on his talk page as Bourdin. His edits themselves were disruptive, but he eventually made a legal threat and was blocked for 3 months (still blocked). Now comes the new account, Francparler, which I believe means "outspoken" in French, who is also making disruptive edits to the article. When challenged (by me), he refers to himself on my talk page repeatedly in the plural ("If you do have a source that's relevant contradict this source then let us know";"we ask you to stop now"; and "who are we, editors"). I'm assuming that both the IP and francparler are the same, although I suppose it's possible that francparler is a friend (meat puppet) of the IP. This situation is kind of the inverse of the usual. Normally, a registered account is blocked, and the blocked user edits as an IP to evade the block. This is (may be?) the opposite. Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - CU will not draw a connection between an IP and a user except in rare circumstances of abuse. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Had to dig around a little, but I am pretty sure this is the same person as the IP who was blocked for making legal threats, thus this is block evasion. Indef blocked. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

22 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This has a weird history starting with an IP claiming to be Frédéric Bourdin. The IP made a legal threat and was indeffed. Then, the IP has come back in various guises, mostly IP addresses, trying to edit the article in evasion of the block. The latest iteration is this account who says he is Bourdin and has been contacting different editors, including Jimbo, in an effort to undo his block, the ultimate goal, of course, to edit the article. As you'll see, if you look at the diatribe he's posted at various talk pages, he doesn't like me much. :-) In addition to the obvious sock puppetry, I see this individual as disruptive. Indeed, it's not like there's something in the article that he thinks is wrong and harmful; he wants to add negative material about his grandfather. In any event, I'm WP:INVOLVED, so I can only express my views and point to the relevant evidence and history.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I hope someone will double check my work. I am unable to confirm or disconfirm if this user is the same as the other users. There are no matches for the ip addresses. However, this user claims to be the other user, and claims to have created this new account to seek a redress of grievances. I am hopeful that with a bit of further discussion with the user, we can resolve the conflict amicably and all this will just go away. I therefore request that, even in the case that this is confirmed to be a sockpuppet, that we allow this account to not be blocked for at least the time that it takes to resolve the complaint. (This is a rather odd BLP issue, and it seems the most humane thing to do to talk it out and only block if that becomes necessary based on current behavior at that time.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, if this is the same user that (as an IP address) made a legal threat, and that threat hasn't been withdrawn since, then no matter who he is, he (all his accounts) should be indefinitely blocked. We don't resolve complaints "amicably" with users who issue legal threats; either the treat is withdrawn or the accounts are blocked. Fram (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the account accordingly, as a self-declared sock of an indef blocked IP (indef for legal threats) who has had his his unblock request rejected only five days ago. Fram (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I double checked Jimbo's finding and can confirm that the two accounts appear to be operated by the same person. Since they are both already blocked, this can be closed. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Closting then. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)