Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Metropolitan/Archive

08 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

As can be seen in the history, on May 5 Der Statisker removed the clickable montage I had created for the infobox of Paris and replaced it with another image without discussion. I reverted, and after they re-reverted I changed it back and started a discussion on the talk page. They ignored this and changed back, I made my final revert pointing out I had started a discussion per WP:BRD. Five minutes later, Metropolitan, who had not edited since last summer, reverted back with the summary "STOP THE REVERT WAR => SEE DISCUSSION". Metropolitan replied to my post on the talk page, and then Der Statisker (who had not edited since last september apart from one revert) agreed, which was followed 20 minutes later by another agreeing comment from Minato ku, being their first edit since 2011. Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

@Metropolitan I am perfectly willing to discuss the image on the talk page. I have not returned it to the montage.

@Metropolitan & Der Statistiker May I ask you how you found this page? I did not notify either of you and you did not receive a notice through echo.

@Der Statistiker If that is the case, then a CU will show that, and I will apologise for being overly-suspicious. I don't feel I OWN the article, but I simply wish to get it up to GA standard, and part of that would be taking inspiration from Featured Articles such as Washington, D.C.. If you suspect me of having sockpuppets, you may wish to talk to Courcelles, the last (I believe) person to run a CU on me.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Your montage has been removed to restore back the view which illustrates the Paris article since years. As it's been pointed to you on the article's Talk page, there has already been multiple discussions about how to illustrate the Paris article over years. The current view from Tour Montparnasse with the Eiffel Tower in the foreground and La Défense skyline in the background has been constantly judged the most relevant to sum up at a glance multiple aspects of the city, and I didn't even participated to those. This advice has been expressed multiple times by multiple contributors over years.

As for your accusation that I'm a sockpuppet, everyone can check my contributions history. I'm a Wikipedia/Wikimedia user since 2005 and I've largely contributed to Paris region related articles in adding sourced contents and in creating pages, infoboxes and fair use maps, diagrams and photos. Metropolitan 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a pathetic attempt by a user, Gilderien, who apparently thought he OWNed the Paris article. It's not because people don't edit that they don't check Wikipedia, and I can't talk for other users, but personally I check the Paris article regularly. Now as my mother used to say: "If they accuse you of it, they are probably doing it themselves". So perhaps we should check whether Gilderien has not created some sockpuppet accounts? Der Statistiker (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * You both need to stop debating the images content here, this is SPI, we don't do content disputes and this is disruptive here. As for sockpuppetry, the timing of the edits after so long a break and all at one time is very odd, very odd indeed, but I'm not ready to jump yet.  If another clerk wants to pipe in, all the better.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - The evidence is a bit tenuous, but given that both Dennis Brown and I find the behavior quite suspicious, I think a check would be warranted here. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Very curious timing indeed, but all accounts are ❌ on the technical side of things. WilliamH (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Without a positive CU there is clearly insufficient evidence for sockpuppetry, so I am closing this with no action taken. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)