Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Marquis de la Eirron

Marquis de la Eirron (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

30 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by PBS [edit]

contributions by Marquis de la Eirron and contributions by 81.110.220.68 Show a tendency to add titles to English/British people without any attempt to present any sources that such titles are correct. eg [1]. What alerted me to the similarity between the edit of these two accounts was two edits to List of regicides of Charles I the first by "Marquis de la Eirron" on 19 August 2010 and the second 10 days later by "81.110.220.68" both added "Sir" to names in the list of regicides and in the case of 81.110.220.68 to the underlying article as well. After checking the sources for the articles there is no evidence that these men were knighted and neither of the accounts offered supporting verification.

The damage this is doing to the project is considerable because vandalism of this type is hard to spot (unless spotted immediately) and if different editors not knowing that it is vandalism assume good faith for the edit and check its validity then a lot of time is consumed by editors checking sources and reversing the edits.

One article that has been almost exclusively been edited by the accounts "Marquis de la Eirron" and "81.110.220.68" is Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom that has in the last few days also been edited by 129.234.252.66 Like "81.110.220.68", "129.234.252.66" has received two requests not to add unverified content to an article about British politicians. PBS (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From this edit to this page we can infer that user:Marquis de la Eirron admits to using 81.110.220.68 as a sock puppet. As does the statement below "The funny thing is i added the title of "Sir" to Robert Tichborne" because those additons were made with the IP address 81.110.220.68 -- PBS (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
user:Marquis de la Eirron follow the link WP:Duck for an explanation of the term "duckish". This is not an investigation into the worth of the edits you are making but the fact that you are using more than one account and editing the same articles. Please read the policy on WP:SOCK. Now that you have admitted using more than one account for editing, and now that it has been pointed out to you. If you use more than one account in future expect you accounts to be blocked. The only question left open is are there any other accounts that you use? -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

The funny thing is i added the title of "Sir" to Robert Tichborne because it clearly states in the wikipedia article that in 1655 he was knighted therefore he aquired the title of Sir, becoming Sir Robert Tichborne so i didn't even make it up as it is historical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de la Eirron (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas the accusations from Yworo come from their narrowmindedness of not reading articles about the person fully, as in most articles it clearly states that the politician in question is LGBT and was known to be either gay, bisexual or had been caught in homosexual act. In some cases they actually resigned their seats because of the acts or in later life became involved with gay rights or gay groups. Therefore my adding in of politicians is actually correct due to their known status and all over the internet it tells you their sexuality so citations be damned as everyone seems to know this to be true except Yworo who can't be bothered to look hard enough but believes he is right all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de la Eirron (talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Yworo shouldn't be deleting things about LBGT British Politicians as Yworo is an American and therefore it is non of their concern as they have no idea about most of these people and don't even know who they, at least i know who they are and i know that i am right about these details also i'm a under-graduate at Cambridge University so i don't know who you think your calling Duckish.

Your saying that i'm using a sock puppet just because sometimes i forget to log on my account or can't be bothered sometimes, that is actually pathetic because i don't see the point in using sock puppets as i'm not afraid to change articles when i know for a fact that the thing that i am changing is correct and anyway your just trying to find fault as you don't like the fact that you have been proven wrong about the "Sir" items in discussion and that for someone who clearly believes in their own self worth and their supposed "knowledge" you don't know alot about british history do you...i rest my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de la Eirron (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the account 129.234.252.66 is not me though the other one is as thats my account when i don't log in to change an article but the 129 account i have no who that is

Comments by other users [edit]

Seems quite duckish to me. The first IP keeps restoring uncited entries added to List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom by Marquis de la Eirron. Yworo (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

It's pretty clear that all three accounts - Marquis de la Eirron, 81.110.220.68 and 129.234.252.66 - are the same person. I don't think there's any sort of malicious intent, though, so I've left a note on Marquis' talk page reminding them that they should log in when they edit. For now, though, I think that's all that should be done. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by One Night In Hackney [edit]

It's already been established in the archived case that Marquis de la Eirron edits from the IP by his own admision, but he's still using it to avoid scrutiny despite being told not to. The IP is also useful in also showing that Marquis de la Eirron is now editing as Comte de Mountstuart, due to the large amount of common edits to List of British politicians who have crossed the floor (also edited extensively by Marquis de la Eirron) and List of Ethnic minority British Politicians. There's also the small matter of the Marquis de la Eirron's indefinite block (unblocked after agreeing to stop, for the record) for causing mayhem with images, the new account is causing the same problems by uploading images such as File:Baroness Campbell.jpg which is from Flickr and released on a no derivatives and non-commercial licence so can't be used here. The other two uploads were the same, all now tagged for speedy deletion.

I don't see the need for the switching between accounts and the constant failure to log in, especially when the new account is carrying on the same problematic behaviour as the first account and making it more difficult to track the problems by using a new account. 2 lines of K303 13:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

I was the one who spotted and reverted this user's last illicit file upload-fest. Looking at the evidence this seems like the most duck-like case of WP:DUCK that I've seen in a long time. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

The two accounts are  Confirmed as the same. No comment on the IP. TNXMan 17:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Indef blocked/tagged the sockpuppet, and I blocked the master for a week. I also blocked the IP for a week per WP:DUCK. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
02 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

A mere 29 minutes after being told that he had to use his original account due to the longer block log, the Political Observation account was created. There's the addition of a "link" to List of Ethnic minority British Politicians (created by Comte de Mountstuart). Then there's this addition of titles and a list of peers to Conservative Monday Club, which has previously been added (in whole or part) by his known IP, many many many times

Marquis de la Eirron is currently using two accounts, in addition to *still* editing while logged out. Political Observation was used from 18:31-21:19 on 30 November, then he switched back to Marquis de la Eirron from 12:26-12:33 on 1 December, and now he's back editing as Political Observation. After what he's been told about which account to use and edit while logged in, I don't think it's any way acceptable. Disrupting the Monday Club for the same way he has been for over a year is a breach of WP:CLEANSTART anyway, in case that is offered as a defence.

I've just also seen there's more copyright violations being created by this account, the original account was temporarily indefinitely blocked for uploading copyrighted images and the first sock account also carried on in the same way. This is a copyright violation from here, and this token effort did not justify the removal of the tag. Similarly this is a copyright violation from here. It seems a clean start is being abused to carry on causing copyright problems also. 2 lines of K303 12:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 2 lines of K303 12:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed. No comments about IPs or logged-out editing. TNXMan 12:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note I've blocked and tagged the sockpuppet, and indefinitely blocked the master and left them a note about it. They had been given other options, including a clean start and so on - yet chose not to go that route. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Marquis de la Eirron has continued editing since his indefinite block using his known and admitted IP, editing all the same articles as with his accounts. The IP seems static, he's been using it for over a year, so a reasonably lengthy block should hopefully discourage him. 2 lines of K303 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Given the huge amount of unsourced changes made by this user, and the continued use of a single static I think a ban is appropriate and would be effective. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
29 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same accounts being edited in the same disruptive manner as before. IP address is the same ISP (NTL) and same location - Baguley, near Manchester, as previous IP's used by sockmaster e.g. 81.110.220.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This sock had previously agreed to take a long break from WIkipedia (see SPI archive for socmaster) and I do not believe that wikiholiday is anywhere near over yet. Please shut down this disruptive sockpuppet's activities. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some further evidence:

--Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 18:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a bit more evidence:

  • If you look at this unblock request by Marquis de la Eirron and the IP's defence statement below it is odd that the phrase "writing on my wall" is used. I'm no linguistics expert, but reading the statement below and many of the user talk page contributions written by the various sockpuppets as well as the original sockmaster, there is a striking similarity in the style of all of them. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 18:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

How dare you accuse me of being a sockpuppeter or whatever that is all I have done is edit articles that I have a specific interest in and because of this one editor Eraserhead1 said that I had actually made the article look better. I edited another article by the name of "British Politicians who ahve crossed the floor" deleting incorrect information and saying why I had done this, before adding a few more names to the list and creating space in the article so that it would be easier to read. I subsquently found myself having another editor writing on my wall accusing me of vandalism and deleting information (or something along those lines), the editor in question had no doubt not even looked at how the article had changed for the better but immediatly reverted my edits. He then went on to say that I had been warned before by editor Vedella for deleting information without evidence, even though I had clearly stated why i was changing the article, however if my sockpuppet accuser had looked at the outcome of what Vedella had said, he would have realised that Vedella himself had his edits reverted back to mine by the said Eraserhead1 who as I have already pointed out said what I had done had infact helped the article. I think it is unfair to be accused of being a sockpuppet when I have done nothing disruptive on the articles apart from putting that certain congressmen were incorrectly LGBT for which I apologise and I will not be called a vandal for merely correcting information on an article. 80.6.193.71 (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AND I DON'T LIVE NEAR BAGULEY, So thats another mistake you have made....A) Accuse me of being a sockpuppet, B)Say i'm vandalising articles and C) that I live near Baguley!!80.6.193.71 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's see what the admins have to say. I didn't say you were vandalising, I warned you for deleting large sections of content without using edit summaries - something you continue to do despite being previously warned. The fact that you edit the same articles in the same disruptive manner as Marquis de la Eirron, and that you are in the exact same NTL service area is enough to convince me. I suspect you've read this before, but take a look at WP:DUCK. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Bob says that I was warned about not using edit summaries, yet my other accuser was himself told that my edits were legit so that arguement was finished when my edits were given the clear.

Simple Bob then goes about how i'm interested in Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton and List of wedding guests of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Kate Middleton, I sort of fail to see what his point is as 2 Billion people were interested in the Royal Wedding and who attended it, so its not just me, but i'm guessing they must be sockpuppets as well as they are taking an interest in a historic event that has been broadcasted all over the world.

With regard to LGBT politicians, the reason i'm so "obsessed" as you put it is because my family are the close friends of a Gay Conservative MP and so I thought if there is an article for "Ethnic Minority British Politicians" then why not for LGBT aswell, as they classified as a break through in politics, so I wanted to know just how many had actually been elected. Plus though he says and I quote that I have put "repeated unsourced additions of alleged LGBT people", the supposedly unsourced additons actually say on their WIKIPEDIA article that they are LGBT so not only is he saying that i'm wrong he is also saying that wikipedia must be wrong as its "unsourced". The members of congress I added had been on a wikipedia article called List of federal political sex scandals in the United States and those that I had added had been involved in scandals involving men e.g soliciting gay sex from a male prositiute, however I did add a man who I shouldn't have added and for that I am sorry as that was a big mistake on my part.

"Writing on my wall" is a Facebook term that most of the people I know use as they have facebook, and when someone writes on your wall guess what its called Simple bob....you guessed it, its called "Writing on my wall" and 500million people use that term, plus you wrote on my wikipedia wall. 80.6.193.71 (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So editing the same articles in the same way with the same writing style from the same ISP in the same part of the country counts for nothing? Hmm... b.t.w. I forgot to ask how San Francisco was. I don't like the Tuscan Inn, it's a bit past its prime IMHO. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
09 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Marquis de la Eirron was told to stay away from Wikipedia for 6 months in early December 2010. He/she came back last month and 80.6.193.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for sockpuppetry. Immediately on the expiration of that block the user is back editing again. And now the exact same pattern of articles edited, comment styles and changes made can be seen by yet another new sock account I Attempt From Loves Sickness (talk · contribs). This is clear evidence that Marquis de la Eirron has no intention of complying with the six month ban. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence that these are the same person comes from this talk page comment by Emeraude (talk · contribs) - particularly telling is the sentence "And there is absolutely no need to list everybody's titles, honorifics and postnomials" which is a trademark of Marquis de la Eirron. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 22:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Simple Bob I don't mean to be rude but you have major issues and I think you need to get them sorted out, as even when all my edits are not only legit as I have added the sources and done everything by the rules, you still go on with yourself about sockpuppetry. Are you the owner of Wikipedia...NO...So what gives you the right to tell someone whether or not they should be allowed to edit on a FREE, OPEN ENCYCLOPEDIA, as my edits are neither disruptive and they aren't vandalising anything...As I know you will be like you have been warned before etc, but the truth of the matter is i'm not doing anything wrong with my edits as no-one else has complained about me except you. Plus why should I not be allowed to edit articles that I ahve a specific interest in or have knowledge about, as are you going to sit there and tell me that you have never done anything wrong on wikipedia, as true when I first started on wiki I made mistakes by uploading pictures, but I haven't done anything since then, so why don't you just leave me alone and stop this witch hunt/vendetta against me, as there are editors alot worse then I, who write bogus stuff, fill articles with swearing/racist stuff and frankly though I have messed up on wiki, 98% of the time I do something that helps improves it so just leave me alone now as your constant pursuit of me has now lost its entertainment. 80.6.193.71 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes? You mean like swearing blind last month that you weren't Marquis de la Eirron, yet here you are admitting it? And why setup yet another account? You were told to stay away from Wikipedia for six months yet here you are again. Why is that? --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take this for an example the editor 81.159.247.187, put on Miranda Harts article that she was really fat and that she looks like an elephant, now thats alot worse then what I have done yet they will still be allowed to edit wikipedia even though they are knwoingly vandalising an article! 80.6.193.71 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And i'm not admitting anything at all, your saying that I have just admitted to being the Marquis de la Eirron, but I was refering to how you accused me last time of being a sockpuppet when I was using my IP and now that I have gone and created myself an account you have once again accused me of sockpuppetry, never once did I mention the Marquis. I Attempt From Loves Sickness (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus as HelloAnnoying states Marquis is indef blocked and so i'm guessing is his IP therefore I would not be edit at all, but I was to edit until I just got blocked, so not only are you accusing me of being someone who i'm not, your saying that I must be a sockpuppet becuase I have an interest in politics and that I live in Manchester where a sockpuppet happens to live. I Attempt From Loves Sickness (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • information Administrator note I've blocked the IP for a month, but Simple Bob, can you give some diffs drawing a connection between the sock and the master? (Sidenote: Marquis is indef blocked.) — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from the slightly confused comments above by I Attempt From Loves Sickness, he and the IP address are the same person so no diffs are needed. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Bob are you that intellectually challenged, its common knowledge that every user on wikipedia has an IP address that is linked to their home and I used that IP address to edit wiki before creating an account so what exactly is your point?? As are you going to tell me that before you created your account that you did not edit under your IP address, as if you did then technically you also a "sockpuppet" as you are using multiple accounts. So therefore I have done nothing wrong as nearly all edits that are done on wikipedia are from someones IP address. I Attempt From Loves Sickness (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I'm saying is that you freely admit that edits by "I Attempt From Loves Sickness" and edits by "80.6.193.71" are yours. The admin asked me to provide diffs to show this, but it is unnecessary because you admit it. What you dispute, unconvincingly, is that you are Marquis de la Eirron - which is not what the admin is asking. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 22:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I asked for a connection between I Attempt and Marquis. Yes, it's clear that the IP == I Loves, but I'm not seeing the link between the two _named_ accounts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear link between the IP and I Loves. There is a clear link between the IP and Marquis. The IP has now been blocked twice for being Marquis' sockpuppet account. The obsession with adding titles and honorifics (as added to the evidence section earlier) is one example of the proof that you need. Do you need more? --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 06:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My IP account hasn't been blocked before so where you have got that information from I have no idea. On the UKIP wikipage I added honours to the patrons because I thought they might as well be there because they are on the patrons own wiki pages e.g Joan Collins OBE and I don't think having the same interest in a certain wiki articles as someone else means i'm a sockpuppet or are you saying its physically impossible for two people to have like the same thing. So can only one person like Manchester United or if someone else edits that page then they must be "obsessed" and a potential sockpuppet?? I Attempt From Loves Sickness (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I made a mistake it seems I was blocked on 30 April for a day after you Simple Bob accused me of being a sockpuppet which I have continued to deny, yet am still being persued over the subject!! I Attempt From Loves Sickness (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Now we wait for his/her next account to pop up.... --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Edit warring on Mary Boleyn. Edit summaries, argument and start dates on WP ( a couple of weeks ago) are all very similar. Posted comment on both talk pages; User:Simple Bob suggested that these accounts were probably both socks of this sockmaster. Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. All the edits point to this being yet another sock of this persistent and disruptive individual. He was told to stay away for six months - six months ago - but has repeatedly returned with new accounts believing for some strange reason that he can get away with it. What should be clear by now is that this editor has no intention whatsoever of complying with the original directive, and so that should be thrown out and a permanent ban should be applied this time and every time that the editor reappears. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 06:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
04 July 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Further changes to Mary Boleyn, along the same lines as previous edit-warring. Deb (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Royal Courtier987 was a single purpose account created just after the last sock (Jack Wills It) was blocked to add data to a number of uploaded files that had been tagged for deletion. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • information Administrator note First I've corrected this case to show the actual usernames, and I've added an IP that was clearly involved. I've blocked Smillabella per WP:DUCK, and the IP as well. But it's been about a month, so I'm endorsing for a sleeper check here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All are  Confirmed along with:

 IP blocked –MuZemike 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Exactly the same pattern of editing, and exactly the same articles - all unsourced changes. This user still hasn't managed the six months away that was mandated in the original SPI judgement Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence that this is the "usual suspect". The user is editing from a hotel in Cyprus - presumably while on holiday. The same thing has happened previously, editing from a hotel in San Francisco. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Actually for once all my changes have been sourced as everything I have added was already in the articles, so I merely made it clearer, but of course Simple Bob never checks something like that he just reverts the edit without checking saying they were "unsourced", so an administrator on wikipedia clearly doesn't himself believe that wikipedia is a reliable way to source information or he wouldn't revert factual information. So I would recommend before you revert editing in future that you yourself make sure they are true before changing them as deleting factual information is abit petty when there are bigger people to catch on wikipedia who truly destroy articles, not me and "obession with adding honourifics ahaha (which are always correct btw, as i'm abit of an expert on titles and such as my father has a title!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.255.182 (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind if you block this IP as i'm going home tommorow and you forgot to put in when I edited whilst I was in Las Vegas tut tut Simple Bob you seem to be slacking in your pursuit of me lol, but wait does that mean you didn't get me when I was in Venice either in June.....Simple Bob I am truly disappointed :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.255.182 (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • information Administrator note Per the above taunting I've blocked the IP for a month. Relist when he goes home or whatever. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This person was just blocked for editing during a holiday to Cyprus (see comments in SPI archive) and is now back in the UK and back up to his old tricks. He still hasn't done what he was told to do, which is stay away from Wikipedia for a full six months. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • information Administrator note Well, he did promise to come back. I've blocked the IP for three months. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28 November 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual similar articles both in relation to Marquis de la Eirron, and previous sockpuppets Jack Wills It and Iamundone98, in particular List of ethnic minority British politicians, which save a couple of edits has only ever been edited by Marquis de la Eirron and his sockpuppets, except for when people revert his sockpuppets. There's also the matter of Daily Blue91 claiming on his userpage to have created the article Pattee Byng, 2nd Viscount Torrington, when it was actually created by previous sockpuppet Jack Wills It. Similarly there's this addition to List of revocations of appointments to orders and awarded decorations and medals of the United Kingdom which can be compared with these additions by previous sockpuppet Iamundone98, where the added entry for John Aislabie is identical, and the added entry for Thomas Parker is identical except that "removed as Lord Chancellor" wasn't added this time. There's plenty more evidence if needed, but the ducks are already quacking loudly enough for me to not waste too much time unless really needed. 2 lines of K303 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I understand why I am being accused of being a sockpuppet, but I have caused no disruptions with my edits, as I have been creating various articles and hope to create one about Female Members of Parliament for the Labour Party during this week. I enjoy creating aricles as I feel like i'm actually contributing to wikipedia as a whole. With the articles I have created I have tried to put in references to back up my claim, however I will go over the articles today and add more references so as not to be accused of adding unsourced information. Daily Blue91 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disruption? I only count five copyright violations in your new articles, which I didn't bother mentioning above since it wasn't particularly germane to the evidence. Rest assured a communuity ban discussion will be following after this case is dealt with, for long-term copyright violations and sockpuppetry. 2 lines of K303 14:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask where the copyright violations occur, as I was sent a message on one article stating that I had infringed on copyright, however that was subsequently removed Daily Blue91 (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try the articles on Welsh politicans for starters, for example Ken Skates is a coypvio from here, and similarly the articles on other Welsh Labour politicans are copyvios from the same site. 2 lines of K303 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I shall delete all content that infringes copyright as I don't want anyone to get into trouble, as i'm not trying to cause any problems, I was just trying to create pages on wikipedia Daily Blue91 (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted all the information that you have said is copyright from the articles in question Daily Blue91 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Blue91 is now taking responsibility for other articles, including Kenneth Stewart which has not even been edited by Daily Blue91 but which was created and edited solely by previously blocked sockpuppet Handellian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mo ainm~Talk 08:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking responsibility as i'm showing the articles that I have created for wikipedia, as i'm trying to show everyone that i'm not being a hinderance and that I am trying to be not only helpful but also productive aswell! Daily Blue91 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
03 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


First edit to Seema Malhotra, article recently created by previous sock Daily Blue91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Second edit creating Anthea McIntyre which suggests not a new editor with that level of Wiki mark-up. Subsequent edits include this adding the somewhat obscure category Category:Eldest sons of barons, same category previously added by Daily Blue91 here, here, here and here. Then there's edits to LGBTory, frequently edited by previous Marquis sockpuppets. Enough ducks quacking already? Requesting checkuser to root out any more sleepers, since this account was created before the previous sock was blocked. 2 lines of K303 09:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Technically indistinguishable from the last sock in the archive. Taking technical and behavioural indicators into account, these are a  Likely match to Marquis de la Eirron, based on the last sock (which regretfully is  Stale so I'm having to join dots) that was confirmed by technical evidence.  Completed - no other sleepers. AGK [•] 10:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged. -- DQ (t) (e) 10:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
05 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Recreation of the Seema Malhotra article, created by previous sockpuppets. From memory it's identical to the original version he created, obviously someone with admin tools can confirm that for certain. 2 lines of K303 12:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • An unsurprising  Confirmed match to previous socks.  IP blocked, didn't see any sleepers. WilliamH (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
08 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

First off the history of Blue Dog Coalition seems to link the IP and Musical Mind20 together, especially considered the evidence to follow. Due to the IP apparently belonging to an educational establishment which IIRC doesn't correspond to any of Marquis's known IPs, this will have to be done on behavioural analysis. The IP also made this edit to LGBTory, it looks strange even on the face of it as it's clearly reverting the reference formatting done in the edit on the left hand side of the window. Although there are a few differences between the IPs new version and the last sock version, the addition of the unsuccessful candidate names at the bottom originally added in this edit seems quackish enough, especially with this and this from the IP also, that's Marquis style editing to the letter.

Now for Musical Mind20. They have uploaded a series of images across a range of articles of minor Conservative politicans. I can't see the deleted images obviously, so any comparisons will be that they uploaded an image for the same article. File:Mark Prisk.jpg matches File:Mark prisk.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:John Henry Hayes.jpg matches John_hayes.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:Bob Neill Official.jpg matches Bob-Neill-MP.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:Grant Shapps Official.jpg matches Grant_shapps.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:Jeremy Hunt Official.jpg matches Jeremy_Hunt2.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:Hugo Swire Official.jpg matches Web-Hugo-Swire.jpg, originally added here by Marquis. File:Owen Paterson Official.jpg matches OwenPaterson4.png, originally added here by Marquis. I could go on and on, but I'm sure you've got the point already. Replacing Marquis images previously deleted and reverting to Marquis's version on an article as an IP, seems obvious enough without adding more? 2 lines of K303 12:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
23 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


IP resolves to the same place of education as 193.63.97.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive#08 February 2012. Removes template added to image uploaded by last sock Musical Mind20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), attempts to get images uploaded by the same sock undeleted here. Pretty open and shut case. 2 lines of K303 13:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • IP blocked for 1 week. (No CheckUser ran). Tiptoety talk 20:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
02 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Known Marquis IP range locating to same educational estbalishment as previous IPs, removing template from images uploading by the last confirmed sock. 2 lines of K303 10:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
16 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The evidence begins at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012 February 26#File:Eric Pickles Official.jpg, which is a deletion discussion regarding an image uploaded by previous sock Musical Mind20 (note the similar type of username too). The discussion referred to there is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eric Pickles Official.jpg, where the Commons account Classical Consort38 makes their only edits to date. So I check back to see if there's an account with the same name editing en wiki, and lo and behold there is, and they just happen to be edited in Marquis type areas - uploading images for Republican (USA) politicans, edits to Conservative articles, negative editing to Labour articles. 2 lines of K303 13:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Classical Consort38 is a  Confirmed match to Musical Mind20. TNXMan 14:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • B&T. T. Canens (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18 April 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

For the IP there's Marquis style edits to well known Marquis target List of ethnic minority British politicians and also reverting to Marquis's version on Blue Dog Coalition, so that's a quacking duck if ever I heard one.

For FunTimesIndeed there's edits to known Marquis target (targeted by previous sock Classical Consort38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012, and also uploads of images relating to minor Conservative Party politicans in the same manner as previous socks. In particular there's the note on File:Lord Astor Minister.jpg reading "All Government websites are now under the Open Government Licence as though this website has not been updated that does not mean it is exempt from the change" which is a strange note for a "new" editor to add to an image. It's there because of previous sock images being deleted for that licensing problem per Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 2#File:Owen Paterson Official.jpg. 2 lines of K303 08:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

FunTimesIndeed is a  Confirmed match to Classical Consort38 (talk · contribs). TNXMan 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Per the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive#18 April 2012 and the admission of sockpuppetry please block the IP, thanks. 2 lines of K303 10:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • 72 hours because of the dynamic ISP. Should hold him for now. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25 April 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing solely to revert to Marquis's version on Conservative Monday Club and Blue Dog Coalition so far. 2 lines of K303 10:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add reverting to Marquis's version on Paul Boateng and Diane Abbott to the list.

IP blocked, this can probably be speedily closed now. 2 lines of K303 11:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]
  • All edits have been legit as if you check they all have the correct references and quotes, so fail to see what the problem is here. Especially since One Night in Hackney seems to have a personal vendetta against any edit on certian pages even if all references have been added, thereby stopping wikipedia from fullfilling its role as a information centre by leaving articles unfinished!. Also putting in a complaint against One Night in Hackney for abusing his position on numerous occasions! 192.150.178.65 (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're banned. You're unwelcome to edit Wikipedia. All your edits will be reverted. 2 lines of K303 11:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • The IP is blocked, so I'll mark for close. TNXMan 13:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22 May 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Known Marquis IP 192.150.178.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) led me to High Sheriff of Greater Manchester where we find Not Made In Chelsea making Marquis style edits particularly the addition of irrelevant minor titles, then Not Made In Chelsea restores material to William Luce (governor) that I removed six months ago which is an awful long way to look back through my contributions, but of course it's an article created by a previous Marquis sock which explains that. 2 lines of K303 10:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed match to FunTimesIndeed (talk · contribs).  IP blocked. TNXMan 15:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blocked and tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Usual Marquis editing areas including Conservative politician image uploads, Republican politicans and the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 article. Replacing previous socks images at Philip Hammond (new and previous sock, John Astor, 3rd Baron Astor of Hever (new and previous sock), Andrew Robathan‎ (new and previous sock, Peter Luff‎ (new and previous sock and so on through their image uploads. 2 lines of K303 12:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

With regard to the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 as you will note from most of my edits, I have an interest in both American and British elections, whether it be the American Congressional and Senatorial Races or the article that I recently created on the European Parliament Election, 2014 (United Kingdom), so that is why I have edited the Police elections and all edits have been sourced and referenced. Most of my other political edits have been on individuals and include Thomas Doherty and Matt Cartwright (Pennsylvania politician) both of which I have created to enhance wikipedia on American Politicians.

The images in question I have just uploaded today, but if you look at most of my uploads [2] I have uploaded images of many politicians both American and British to add to their articles, as why leave an article blank when there is an image that can uploaded via the Open Government Licence or by Congress. He says they are previous sock images, but those sock images that were deleted were unsourced and therefore inviolation of wikipedia rules, mine however have been sourced from a website using the OGL licence. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Blocked on behavioural criteria, but would appreciate a CU confirmation if possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed to also look for sleepers.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Possible; no sleepers. I see a couple more IP edits on highly dynamic ranges as well, so relying on behaviour will have to do ATM. If the list of targeted articles is relatively small, semiprotection might be more useful. — Coren (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account already blocked and added tag. Closing.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


19 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


New IP editing frequent target England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 . IP belongs to the Royal Northern College of Music in Manchester, IPs from the same establishment were detailed in the 08 February 2012 SPI, 23 February 2012 SPI and 2 March 2012 SPI. 2 lines of K303 09:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
29 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same username format as previous socks Slytherining Around32, Musical Mind20, Royal Courtier987 and Classical Consort38. Same editing areas as previous socks particularly American politicians and elections. He seems to be moving away from British politicians and politics to confuse behavioural evidence but his brief forays into that area include this edit to British Labour politician Barnett Stross which is repeating an edit previous made by Marquis as an IP and similarly this edit to Jewish right which repeats the substance (if not exact word-for-word) of this addition made by a previous Marquis sock. Plus this edit relating to a candidate for the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012, which itself was a target for many previous socks. 2 lines of K303 16:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
07 July 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Edits to three articles so far. Firstly Rye House Plot, previously targeted by known Marquis IPs 81.110.223.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 93.109.255.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 81.110.220.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as known sock Political Observation (talk · contribs). Secondly Jewish right targeted by known socks Musical Mind20 (talk · contribs) and Myth Busting12 (talk · contribs). Finally Lynn Jenkins targets by known socks Myth Busting12 (talk · contribs) and Slytherining Around32 (talk · contribs). Edits to three (and only those three) diverse articles that all happen to be edited by known Marquis socks, I don't believe I need to say more? 2 lines of K303 19:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 2 lines of K303 19:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


08 July 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Usual editing areas and style. First edit just happens to be involving himself in the same edit war on the same article as a previous sock. Various other articles edited by other socks are John W. Douglass, Michael D. Lumpkin, Susan Brooks, Women in the United States House of Representatives and in particular Angela Lansbury which is obviously outside the usual editing area. 2 lines of K303 20:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • No edit warring as I merely put the congressional picture back instead of the uploaded facebook picture. I edit many pages as you will see by my account, I did not realise that the other articles had been edited by a sockpuppet. Gates of Dawn (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering you weren't notified about this SPI report (quite deliberately), good luck explaining why you're here defending yourself if you're not a sock ;) 2 lines of K303 10:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


13 July 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Account created at 09:53, 9 July 2012, one minute before the first edit of the day by previous sock Gates of Dawn, and 5 minutes before they edited the SPI page, so knowing it was likely Gates of Dawn was going to be blocked they created a new account. Usual editing areas as previous socks including List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes and List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes, adding categories relating to "Hispanic and Latino American people in the United States Congress" (the List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress article itself is a target for several previous socks) plus typical style Marquis edits such as this adding "Sir" before John Eliot Gardiner's name. Request checkuser to root out any sleepers also, due to Marquis creating this account before the previous sock was blocked. 2 lines of K303 11:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since, despite me not interacting with the editor in any way (no notification was given), he's decided to target all my images for deletion with highly incorrect rationales, could someone block the sock and we'll deal with the checkuser as and when? 2 lines of K303 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
06 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Repeating the same incorrect edit as one made by previous sock, plus this, this, this, and this (and more, just for the record) all happen to be adding images uploaded to Commons by a Marquis account there (named Slytherining Around32, same as a previous sock here). 2 lines of K303 10:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just block per WP:DUCK if it's easier, I don't mind. 2 lines of K303 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser can't confirm innocence, that's a long-established principle. As already shown in the archive he's got access to multiple ISPs including public computers (and even IPs in completely different countries), a negative checkuser just means he's using a different public computer probably. As noted above, but deliberately left out of his unblock request, there's also the same edits to Ara Darzi, Baron Darzi of Denham which go way beyond adding an image - that edit alone is a WP:DUCK in itself. 2 lines of K303 19:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Re-opening case. Checkuser seems necessary now that I need to Tan (talk · contribs) blocked as a WP:DUCK has has requested it to confirm innocence. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk endorsed - to clarify.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress per the duckish edits repeating those by a previous sock, and not because of the requested confirmation of innocence - we do not entertain such requests. WilliamH (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, CheckUser is not especially helpful. It is possible that the IP is that of a webhost, but I'm told that that's a hard call to make. At any rate, the behaviour is very suggestive. WilliamH (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Photgenical (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)


Same method as the previous sock detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive#06 August 2012, with some subtlety thrown in. While the edit summaries (and the edits themselves) suggest other changes, what they are really doing is adding images uploaded by Marquis without mentioning that in the edit summary.

And that's every single edit they've made. Every single one just happens to be adding images uploaded by Marquis socks. If a clerk wants to say checkuser isn't needed I don't mind. 2 lines of K303 10:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC) 2 lines of K303 10:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed the following are the same:
31 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

For English Picturio the usual style of edits in the usual areas of interest, with one dead giveaway. This edit by English Picturio just happens to pretty much replicate this edit by previous sock Where Did You Walk. The additions for Virginia Wheeler, Duncan Larcombe, an unnamed 50-year-old man and an unnamed 43-year-old woman, Clodagh Hartley, Neil Millard (and so on throughout the events added) are all word for word the same and using the same Wiki markup.

Stark House appears to be another sock used to split the contributions between English politicians and American Republican ones, since it's documented in previous cases for this sockmaster that both are his editing areas and one account doing both is a dead giveaway. William Enyart, Bill Johnson (Ohio politician) and Kay Granger are frequent targets of his. The image uploads of File:Kay Granger.jpg, File:Chris Gibson 2.jpg and more are identical to the behaviour of a recent sock, where he links to the main page of a Congressperson's website where the image doesn't even appear, done here at User_talk:Slytherining Around32#File copyright problem with File:Mary Fallin2.jpg, User_talk:Slytherining Around32#File copyright problem with File:Lynn Jenkins2.jpg, User_talk:Slytherining Around32#File copyright problem with File:Elijah Cummings23.jpg and so on. His socks almost always upload to Commons now, since his images get deleted a lot easier here due to him being community banned. Plus he's also back at frequent target African Americans in the United States Congress. 2 lines of K303 14:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP listed as well, obviously checkuser won't be commenting on that. Sole purpose of the IP is to reinstate the edits of a previous Marquis sock, so WP:DUCK is enough for that.

Pride Affair added also, per Martin H's Commons logs from 20:00, 30 August 2012. Three Commons accounts blocked at the same time for sockpuppetry, the other two just happen to be the other two socks listed here. 2 lines of K303 15:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the Stark House account on Commons is rather telling too, since Slytherining Around32 is his account there (and the name of a previous sock here). 2 lines of K303 14:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I have been adding relevant information to various articles, as no-one else seems to do it, I have actively participated in making these articles more accessible to the public to read. One Night in Hackney complains about my editing yet if it was not for me the articles would stay factual incorrect or lacking up to date information. I am helping wikipedia, whilst One Night in Hackney seems content to let articles slip into the unknown, by reverting legit edits that improve the article. Surely if someone is going out of their way to improve an article that is a good thing, regardless of who they are, but even with references and sources One Night in Hackney seems intent on reverting, which could be seen as a deliberate act of vandalism, since he is removing valuable and often crucial content from the article. Stark House (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may as well hold up a big sign saying "I am a sock". You weren't notified of this report, and I've made three edits to articles so far today, and none of them happen to be editing articles that you have. Hopefully one day you'll get the message that the Wikipedia community has banned you and therefore you aren't welcome to edit here. 2 lines of K303 14:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have been notified about this report, but on some of the articles I had edited I saw your name had also edited it and wanted to check your user contributations, and I saw a sockpuppet thing, where low and behold when I clicked on it I saw my name. I just don't understand what your problem is, my edits are useful to wikipedia, I put alot of time and effort into editing various articles to improve them by adding sources/references and then I upload images! At first when I started uploading images I didn't understand about copyright so of course I got in alot of trouble. But now I understand about copyright etc so I upload using OGL (Which you don't understand) and US government agencies. Why can't you just leave me alone, so that I can edit the articles I want to in peace, as I don't vandalize articles, I don't smear people, I don't spam, all I want to do is to be left alone to edit articles in my interest. Its bad enough I have Aspergers Syndrome and ADHD which means i fixate on certain things once i'm interested in them, so in this case its wikipedia, which means I can't stay away, if you don't want to believe me then so be it, but no matter how hard I try to stay away from wikipedia, I always want to edit it and so its not my fault, as its a condition and I can';t help it. So to an administrator please look over my edits and you will see that they are truly helpful towards wikipedia. Thanks Stark House (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - IP geolocates perfectly with same ISP and there is ample linkage to warrant a CU plus a check for sleepers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already blocked IP via WP:DUCK, 2 weeks, dynamic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). that the named users are the same. It is a 10 minute drive from a previous sock, but is in a highly populated area, so  Likely. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked and tagged. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15 September 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Already blocked at Commons as a presumed sock [3], recent uploads here (UK Govt images) are similar to previous sock Slytherining Around32's uploads at Commons [4]. January (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user is also edit-warring one of Slytherining Around32's Commons uploads into an article [5]. January (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Ah, didn't see this before adding the SPI below - I guess the two things go together though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


15 September 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Uploading files of UK government ministers in a pattern very similar to User:FunTimesIndeed. The defence, when challenged, is virtually identical to that used at User talk:FunTimesIndeed as is the pattern of reverts and blanking of talk page sections (see [6] and [7]. Adding of images such as those of Michael Gove (see [8] and [9]) and the edit summaries when challenged (see [10] compared to [11]). The pattern of images just looks too close to me and I'd welcome someone having a bit more of a look at it. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary of this diff [12] would seem to support the SP claim - the image in question was uploaded by User:Slytherining Around32, a previously confirmed sock of Marquis de la Eirron. If permission was received by Yum Yum Hornblower for an image uploaded by Slytherining Around32, and the edit summary very strongly suggests that, then they should logically be the same user.
There's also editing of List of ethnic minority British politicians which seems to be the trademark of Marquis de la Eirron socks as far as I can see from previous SPI. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
01 October 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Active in the same fields as the previous socks, especially interested in british ministers. Many valid images at Commons were overwritten by this user with images from invalid/fake/copyvio sources. Started to upload images with wrong/fake source here too. Denniss (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

The images I upoladed were all legit, I uploaded them over other the not as good images as it saved time rather then go through the lengthy process of uploading them and then putting the image in each of the pages, you can easily find these images on their respective government pages so no copyright breach has occured. Of course my accuser being a german wiki editor porbably doesn't understand how english and american copyright law works! Uptown Church (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • CheckUser is no Unnecessary here since the account has already been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet by another admin. Closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
06 October 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Active again in the field of UK politics, British ministers specifically. Uploading of images deleted from the Commons again (for example, Phil Woolas2.jpg with a lack of clear copyright (see Talk:Phil Woolas#Possibly non free image removal for rationale. Editing of pages such as List of revocations of appointments to orders and awarded decorations and medals of the United Kingdom also suggests SP - page was originally created by another SP of MofE - as does the almost classic editing of List of British politicians who have crossed the floor. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Blocked and rolled back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11 October 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Active again in the field of UK politics, British ministers specifically. changing images to those by previous socks of Marquis de la Eirron. E.g. Philip Hunt, Baron Hunt of Kings Heath diff previous modified by user:Slytherining Around32 diff. Keith D (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Focus on Welsh Assembly members is entirely in line with his most recent sock as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
15 October 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Pattern of image insertion along with largely unsubstantiated claims of copyright - e.g. to Karen Lumley. Image here ends up with her own website which very clearly says everything is copyrighted. Entire focus looks like it's on politicians again - Jake Berry, Peter Aldous - along with associated military personnel etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
27 October 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Created shortly after the last investigation was closed. Focus again on UK politicians and uploading images with invalid licences or sourcing. Road Wizard (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Added Hipster Boys, an account which edited for a few days then stopped about 4 hours before Triff Traff started editing. Has been uploading images of politicians to Commons dubiously claimed to be under the Open Government Licence (see Commons:COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HipsterBoys) and adding them to articles here as several previous socks have done. January (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Triff Traff is  Confirmed as Britannia lol (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who has already been identified as the Marquis. Already blocked by FPaS.

HipsterBoys is  Confirmed as Cantspeakfrench10 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and appears to be the Marquis, based on his editing habits. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Astroturffor4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is also the Marquis from technical data, although the edits are truly bizarre. Not a contributor to the project, whatever. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

31 October 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Active again in the field of UK politics, British ministers specifically. Adding images to these pages also uploading images to commons with an incorrect license indicating it has an ORTS ticket but the ORTS does not have sufficient info to make it valid. Keith D (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Checkuser turns up nothing but that they are in the same country, but I see FPaS has blocked as a duck. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You sure about that? I see on the same IP six of the userids from this SPI archive already blocked as socks of Marquis. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I've seen Hersfold spoof six useragents while sat at one machine. Although at that, I suppose the tell would be one person editing from one IP with six different useragents. He was already duck blocked, only I didn't realise it until I ran the check. When I did, I didn't look that much further to tell the truth.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13 November 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Active again in the field of UK politics, British ministers specifically. Adding/changing images on those pages that have been edited by Marquis de la Eirron. For example this edit is the same as that of earlier sock here. Keith D (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • information Administrator note Blocked for a month this time. Jafeluv (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14 November 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Back editing List of British politicians who have crossed the floor including reinsertion of previous edits by identified socks. The 193.63.97.x range has come up a number of times before in relation to the Marquis. Road Wizard (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Blocked for 48 hours by Fut.Perf. Jafeluv (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
05 December 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Mking usual edits as per previous Marquis de la Eirron socks. Adding images of dubious copyright to MP articles here and here. Keith D (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Blocked. Pretty obvious case, also blocked on Commons since 30 November. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Closed, since Future Perfect at Sunrise has already blocked and tagged the account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


10 December 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Replacing images of UK politicians removed as they were originally uploaded by other socks of Marquis de la Eirron - edit summaries are identical in style to typical Marquis de la Eirron socks, such as edits to Harriett Baldwin. There's some work to be done over at the Commons removing traces of the user clearly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Why do you need to remove these images, as they are all legit and have been sourced correctly. They are all linked to the Open Government Licence which is used in British Law for allowing images to be uploaded to wikipedia or wikimedia commons, therefore there is no copyright violations or anything that could be perceived as either vandalism or illegal. It is good that Blue Square Thing is trying to do the best for wikipedia, but he does not understand how the OGL works and until recently he did not know it exsisted. Even when proof of copyright status documents were shown to him, proving that HM Treasury had allowed images to be used under the OGL and on wikipedia and that lawyers had given their permission, he refused to believe it. I mean how can an editor think he knows more about the copyright of images on HM Treasury then HM Treasury lawyers. His edits are not making the articles any better, infact they are causing both disruption and for no app arrant reason. I suggest getting the user User:Innotata and administrator User:Jdforrester involved as they both know alot about the OGL and the administrator used to work for the British Civil service and created an article with rgard to the OGL. But please stop removing the images especially since the are legit! M Macleod 20.10 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
16 March 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Previously edited as User:Ilford North Scott MP (rename), who was blocked as a Marquis sock on Commons (see Commons:User talk:Ilford North Scott MP). Some previous socks have used names intended to give the impression that the account represents a particular MP (eg A Rudd MP (talk · contribs), David Mowat 2010-MP (talk · contribs), Croydon South MP (talk · contribs)). This account also has similar interest in British and American politicians. January (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand further on the behaviour that got them blocked at Commons (in response to Native Foreigner's comment), the accounts in politicians' names were used to upload a photograph of the politician it purported to represent, falsely claimed as own work [13][14][15][16], Ilford North Scott MP's only contribution to Commons matches this pattern [17]. January (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user has today restored an edit previously made by known sock Charlotte Leslie 1978 (talk · contribs) [18][19], another similarity with that account is editing of LGBT lists. The Harsh Song of Space created List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom using some of the same material Charlotte Leslie 1978 added to a similar list in userspace [20].
Antiquities432 (talk · contribs), who I blocked as a sock per Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Slytherining Around32 (hence not listed in the SPI here) last edited on 9 January 2013 - is this recent enough for Checkuser? January (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: CU evidence is all stale at this point. It's plausible but not quacking, in my opinion. NativeForeigner Talk 00:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Doing some deep digging, I see a fair amount of evidence that links him to many of the socks previously blocked, although it wasn't obvious at first glance. Already blocked, so closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25 March 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Changing exactly the same images (for example this) as previous sock of Marquis de la Eirron user:I need to Tan (see this edit. Keith D (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Keith D (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding user:Puramyun31 for similar image adding this edit adds image as per this edit by user:Musical Mind20 blocked as a Marquis de la Eirron sock Keith D (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From comment by user after my reversion I may have got user:Puramyun31 incorrectly tied in here because looked to match the profile. Keith D (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Image pattern looks very familiar. We still have a huge number of images previously uploaded by socks of Marquis de la Eirron which are either here or were transferred to the Commons and which seem to allow M de la E to avoid the ban really quite easily. They appear to have never been chased down properly when some socks were blocked in the past. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not unusual for other users to upload images originally uploaded by User:Musical Mind20 or other socks of Marquis de la Eirron. It's a by product of so many of the images originally uploaded to wiki by MM20 being transferred to the Commons without the implications of this (or their actual copyright status) being considered. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
13 April 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This IP has previously been associated with Marquis in block log and recent edits indicate that they're still using it – several edits today changing images to ones uploaded by known socks Open Window When and User:Musical Mind20 [21][22][23][24][25][26] and similar interests in British and American politicians, including edits to List of British politicians who have crossed the floor which has been identified before (see archive) as an article that Marquis socks commonly edit. January (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I think that we need to remove the images, with dubious copyright uploaded by socks, from Commons so that IPs cannot keep re-adding them to articles. Keith D (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the obvious copyvios have already been deleted (several Commons administrators are also well aware of this user). Commons doesn't have an equivalent of WP:CSD#G5, so any remaining problematic uploads would need to go through Commons:Commons:Deletion requests. January (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • information Administrator note IP blocked for three months. Jafeluv (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
06 May 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New account showing similar interests in British and US politics; began editing in April by uploading US Congressional portraits to Commons [27], as did other socks eg Uptown Church. The username is vaguely similar to some previous socks, eg Where Did You Walk, What doth thou say, Euro Who, Open Window When. Edits have been made to several articles which were also recently edited by the last sock The Harsh Song of Space (talk · contribs) or by the IP recently blocked per this SPI 80.2.37.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), for example:

[28][29][30]

[31][32]

[33][34]

[35][36]

[37][38] (adding the same claim)

The talk page history shows a similar pattern to The Harsh Song of Space of messages pointing out problems with their edits being blanked without comment. Today they have made several additions to Category:American politicians convicted of crimes, The Harsh Song of Space also made several additions to 'politicians convicted of crimes' categories. January (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
30 May 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar interest in British nobility/political figures. Marquis has a history of text as well as image copyright problems (see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Marquis de la Eirron) and of this account’s two created articles, Charles Fanshawe, 4th Viscount Fanshawe is a clear copyright violation and I strongly suspect Thomas Fanshawe, 2nd Viscount Fanshawe is too from the style/tone. January (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In view of the checkuser findings and as there haven't been any further copyvios since the user was warned, I think it would be unfair to block at this point so I'm happy for this to be closed. January (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
21 July 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP previously blocked per this SPI, has resumed editing a few days after expiration and the first two edits are to List of British politicians who have crossed the floor, an article which has been identified in previous reports eg 23 November 2010, 29 April 2011, 06 October 2012 as one of this user’s most frequently edited articles. January (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • The IP has been blocked for 6 months for ban evasion. Closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
05 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP address has surfaced in recent weeks, and has shown similarities with the Marquis and associated sockpuppets. One example is the replacement of photographs with "official" versions, which might have copyright issues, eg with David Willetts [40] and [41]. Also, the pages revised are often the same, eg List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress [42] and [43]. Also, List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes [44] and [45]. And also John Skeffington, 14th Viscount Massereene [46] and [47] Also List of ethnic minority British politicians [48] and [49] Also Women in the United States House of Representatives [50] and [51] Also List of British politicians who have crossed the floor [52] and [53] Probably some others too. As the Marquis has been banned indefinitely, yet keeps coming back under different identities, could this be another example? Thanks. Patrick Brand (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Image changing such as this which is usual behaviour of this person. Keith D (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Blocking IP for 1 month, closing Legoktm (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Feelingunwell? is already blocked on Commons (see Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Slytherining Around32). As with previous socks, the talk page history shows a stream of messages about problems with their edits (particularly edit-warring) which they usually blank without comment (see 06 May 2013 and 15 September 2012 for previous examples). Has also moved two pages to add 'Sir' to the title logs, adding Sir to titles was identified as a trait of the original account. Articles edited in common with previous socks include List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes [54][55][56], Women in the United States House of Representatives [57][58] and List of military veterans in British politics [59] created by a previous sock [60]. The user also appears to be editing logged out from the IP blocked per this SPI in October (see 05 October 2013. January (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Suspected sock tagged and blocked indef; IP blocked three months. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
08 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This user has many behavioural similarities with other socks of the Marquis, Such as an obsession with titles.[61]. Also edits of many of the same topics, eg Women in the United States House of Representatives [62] and [63] and Bob Filner [64] and [65] Patrick Brand (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Messages being blanked without comment [66] is also a characteristic of this user (see last SPI). The messages were about edit-warring and BLP issues, typical problems with this user's edits. The last sock User:Feelingunwell? is recent enough for checkuser if needed. January (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
14 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This user has many behavioural similarities with other socks of the Marquis. In particular, a tendency to add pictures of dubious legitimacy to pages, as identified by others on his talk page [67] and disruptive editing [68]. There is also a tendency to edit several of the same pages, such as Party switching in the United States illustrated here [69] and [70] and [71]. Also Women in the United States House of Representatives here [72] and [73] and [74]. And this edit [75] is identical to these by other socks of the Marquis: [76] and [77]. Overall behaviour looks too similar to me. Patrick Brand (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I just wanted to say that as the person who seems to have been involved in the initiation of this process, I can't actually see from the evidence provided that this user shares any habits or interests with this Marquis user. I am not familiar with the process of SPIs but to me this particular one doesn't look like a good advert in my opinion. Graemp (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, now I can. Graemp (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
19 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Yesterday this IP has restored several of the edits/images of recent sock User:DimSum38 which I had reverted [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87], and removed a deletion notice from one of DimSum38's uploads at Commons [88]. Earlier edits are also consistent with this user, for example List of British politicians who have crossed the floor which seems to be a particular favourite of this user as pointed out several times in the archive eg here, and List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes, where I see 3 other socks in the history [89][90][91], Party switching in the United States also edited by several previous socks [92][93][94], also here changed to an image uploaded by previous sock User:Uptown Church. January (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • IP blocked one week for block evasion, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New account which has uploaded several US politician images of questionable copyright status to Commons (I’ve just raised four deletion requests there on this user’s uploads). About half of this user’s edits here have been to add uploads made by known sock User:Uptown Church to articles [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111]. January (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
17 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Changing images of politicians to those recently uploaded to commons under Commons:User:HymnofDreams with the usual questionable copyright license as per previous socks of this user. As an example see diff. Keith D (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • IP blocked for one week for block evasion. Mike V • Talk 22:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13 June 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Articles created are similar to those created by previously identified Marquis socks. Among the 9 created by this account: List of female lieutenant governors, List of Jewish members of the United States Congress, List of female Members of the London Assembly, List of female Members elected to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom (since redirected as fork). Examples of creations of previously identified socks: Lists of female political office-holders in the United Kingdom, List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States, List of military veterans in British politics - all also edited by SleepCovo (respectively 18 edits beginning [112], 11 edits beginning [113] and 2 edits beginning [114]).

SleepCovo has made many other edits to articles created by Marquis socks or previously identified in SPIs as frequently edited by Marquis socks, including List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom, 17 edits beginning [115]; List of British politicians who have crossed the floor, 24 edits beginning [116]; List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress, 2 edits[117][118];Women in the United States House of Representatives, 12 edits beginning [119]; List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes - 12 edits beginning [120], Party switching in the United States, 5 edits beginning [121].

Previous socks including User:Musical Mind20, User:Stark House, User:FunTimesIndeed and User:Yum Yum Hornblower were identified partly from their habits of uploading image files for UK Conservative politicians, especially ministers. SleepCovo has uploaded 14 such, starting with File:Edward Timpson Minister.jpg and File:David Laws Minister.jpg. NebY (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

82.6.168.150 has overlapped considerably, including at List of British politicians who have crossed the floor, about 40 edits beginning [122]; List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes, about 47 edits beginning [123] and List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom, 4 edits beginning [124] and including today.

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I have done nothing wrong, my edits have neither been vandalism or against wikipedia policy so I cannot understand why I am being threatened with being blocked even though my edits have helped improve countless articles on wikipedia? If I have done nothing wrong in my edits, as you will see most have been sourced and have never been reverted, then I don't understand why I have been singled out, especially if not for my edits then these articles would have been left incomplete and inaccurate! SleepCovo (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I find the evidence persuasive and have blocked and tagged SleepCovo. I've also blocked the IP for three months. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

That the IP and HowAboutNo91 are the same editor is pretty obviously given the overlap and HowAboutNo91's edits from 21:59, 2 July 2016 to 22:04, 2 July 2016 where they mass-revert DanceHallCrasher's edits to the IP's version, such as this and 20 other identical edits. In case further evidence is needed there's this edit by the IP to Rosena Allin-Khan at 15:46, 17 June 2016 followed by HowAboutNo91 to the same article 5 minutes later. With other slightly unusual articles in common such as List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes, List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress, List of female lieutenant governors in the United States, Lists of female political office-holders in the United Kingdom and Party switching in the United States I doubt there's any dispute that HowAboutNo91 is also editing as 80.2.141.56.

After digging a bit deeper into the obscure articles this editor also appears to be a sockpuppet of Marquis de la Eirron. The overlap with the last known sock is quite revealing. Looking at the many previous socks listed in the archive there's edits to other regularly edited articles such as Women in the United States House of Representatives ([125]), List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes ([126] - just 1 of only ~40 edits), List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress ([127], [128] & [129]) and so on. Mo ainm~Talk 22:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Please, compare HowAboutNo91 to SleepCovo (see [130] and [131]). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SleepCovo is  Stale. Moving to the open queue. Mike V • Talk 16:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some further digging. Based on behaviour and general location, it is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron that HowAboutNo91 is a Marquis de la Eirron sock. Risker (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behavioural evidence makes it look pretty certain that the account and the IP address are both the same person as some known socks, so adding that to the comment from Risker about "general location", the identification seems certain. I have blocked the account indefinitely, and the IP address for a year, in view of the long time scale of the problem, and the fact that there are no edits in the history of the IP address which don't seem to be from Marquis de la Eirron. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Overlap with the last sock. Not only do they edit regular Marquis targets like List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom but they make the same edit. They also make identical edits to Priti Patel (HowAboutNo91 VoilaMe), Salma Yaqoob (HowAboutNo91 VoilaMe), Shahida Rahman (HowAboutNo91 VoilaMe) and Tulip Siddiq (HowAboutNo91 VoilaMe). Mo ainm~Talk 18:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Priti Patel was in the news and I went on her article and scrolled to the bottom where it said 'English politicians...' but after clicking on that category I saw that she was the only one in that category, the same with others and so after clicking on other politicians names decided to fix their articles as they are british politicians and the british politicians category has many names but someone, another editor, had put them in the english category, which meant they were the only person in that entire category, which looked strange. I also made the edits to other articles and fixed them from the more obscure south asian category to the more factual and relevant pakistani and indian categories and made two further categories myself since people were missing their relevant cultural heritage. I made the edit on the EMP page due to Baroness Manzoor switching from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives yesterday. The editor Mo ainm~Talk hasn't edited on wikipedia since 22 September and this investigation, which he created, is his first edit since then. He has accused me of being a 'sock puppet' but in order for him to have seen the factual and sourced edits that my account had done, means that he himself must have another account, which means that he himself is most likely one of these 'sock puppets'. I would like to open a sock puppet investigation into Mo ainm~Talk, but I dont know how to. VoilaMe (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious VoilaMe how did you find this page, I didn't notify you of it. Mo ainm~Talk 20:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged my name in the investigation, which meant that wikipedia sent me an alert -_- VoilaMe (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

05 April 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Appears to be User:BlobBlob98 evading his or her block upon examination. They attempted to re-add BlobBlob98's contributions to Michael Portillo here. More or less the same thing also happened on Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2017 and List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. [132] [133] [134] [135] Has been adding similar categories to pages as well. [136] [137] Sro23 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

29 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action -  Looks like a duck to me. Please indef FinalDestiny1991 and block 80.2.141.56 for a year. The rest of the IP's are stale. Sro23 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. GABgab 00:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


SouthAfricannn19876 created Draft:LGBT holders of political office in the United Kingdom which is a near-verbatim recreation of Lists of LGBT political office-holders in the United Kingdom, except that it lacks about fifty references that the previous one included. Lists of LGBT political office-holders in the United Kingdom was itself created by HeyMate29; its resemblance to the previously-deleted LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom is striking. The latter was created by BlobBlob98 (talk · contribs). More at User talk:Bbb23/Archive 41#New user HeyMate29. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Blocked and tagged, draft deleted. GABgab 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25 March 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I think it's pretty bad that you didn't make me aware that you were opening up an investigation against me. The fact that another editor had to tell me about it makes it look like you're trying to be sneaky. However I shall defend myself against all the allegations you have put against me. Though I do believe that the only reason you have opened this investigation is because you don't like being challenged on the 'List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom' article. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. This editor has created lots of disturbance on articles, often deleting huge swaths of content without explanation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

You have not explained why you need a CU. Regardless, the case is  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Another new user editing the same distinctive set of articles, including Black conservatism in the United States, List of British politicians who have crossed the floor and List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom. WP:DUCK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 May 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

After discovering and understanding the edit patterns of the sockpuppet master, I have strong reason to believe that this account is a sockpuppet of this master. This account doesn't have too many edits, but most, if not all, seem related to politicians, though on the English Wikipedia, this account has mostly edited on countries' politicians' articles and pages unrelated to the United Kingdom or the United States. However, what set of my "sock radar" was actually their edits on Commons: This account had recently uploaded files on Commons at names (and the same images) of some files that were deleted per WP:G5 on the English Wikipedia due to being uploaded by this sockpuppet master. For examples, see File:Malcolmmacdonald.jpg, File:Duncansandys.jpg, and File:Harrycrookshank.jpg, all files that were deleted recently as uploaded by this sockpuppet master per WP:G5. Steel1943 (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. @Green Giant: Please globally lock this account and Sanchaa123 (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Bbb23: cheers. Green Giant (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  • This IP address is making similar edits to another previous Sockpuppet account associated with Marquis de la Eirron, an account titled JimmyJoe87. Similar to these two accounts, this IP address is focusing their edits on list related political pages, as well as changing the images of politicians as they see fit. My suspicions that 86.11.92.125 is the same as Marquis de la Eirron/JimmyJoe87 is based on both of them constantly making edits on the Wikipedia page List of visible minority politicians in Canada, constantly removing information regarding politicians of African/Caribbean descent and leaving them with the generalized term of 'Black Canadian'. For example, here and here. Like JimmyJoe87, this IP address is persistent in reverting the information back to their edits. Gforbes1962 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the article Asian American and Pacific Islands American conservatism in the United States appears to be a favourite of the current IP sock and previous JimmyJoe87 sock, looking through the edit history of the page. Looking at the archive for this user's sock history, I can also see a pattern that this IP account also likes to edit lists related to politicians committing crimes, per the edit history of this page, where this IP and JimmyJoe87 were constant contributors. The IP address they are editing from is also from a similar location to the previous sock IP accounts, and this user appears to have a long history of using multiple IPs. Gforbes1962 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Evidence is persuasive, please block for at least 2 weeks since the IP appears to be sticky. Sro23 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Blocked for a period of 2 weeks per request. If it is determined that the block should be for a longer duration, please advise and I will. With that said, any admin is welcome to change it as need be. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Please re-open if IP becomes active again. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


16 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

WP:DUCK case of IP editing Asian American and Pacific Islands American conservatism in the United States and adding images to List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

02 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The sock IP for Marquis de la Eirron is back and editing again. The IP address was previously banned for two weeks back in mid June, and is making the same edits it did before to the same pages. Gforbes1962 (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - This is clearly still the same person. Since the IP seems reasonably static, please block the IP for three months. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Sro23 (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

24 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

During the past couple of weeks, I have noticed that new editor FinalXFantasy and whoever has been using, since July 26, 2018, the IP address 194.176.105.138 (which may be an IP address from a hospital, according to a comment made in April 2018 by an editor seeking to have the IP address unblocked) have been making the same types of edits, to the same types of articles, that Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppet JimmyJoe87 made prior to being uncovered as a sock and banned. The areas of interest common to all of these editors are minority (whether ethnic, religious or sexual) politicians, politicians convicted of crimes, and party switching. All of these editors also make the same types of edits, to wit, largescale deletions to articles because the content supposedly is "unnecessary," and changes to photos (usually to make them smaller, ostensibly to make the article's presentation similar to that of other articles). Recent edits to the following articles show how 194.176.105.138 and/or FinalXFantasy have taken over where JimmyJoe87 left off when he was banned:

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_party_switchers_in_the_United_States&action=history (FinalXFantasy made on August 18, 2018 over a dozen edits to this article (which was created on April 21, 2018, after JimmyJoe87 had been banned, as a mirror to a section of the "Party Switching in the United States" article that JimmyJoe87 frequently edited) that were similar to the frequent edits that JimmyJoe87 made to the "Party Switching in the United States" article from October 2017 until he was blocked in March 2018)

In conclusion, I strongly suspect that FinalXFantasy (who started editing on August 9, 2018) and whoever has been using 194.176.105.138 since July 26, 2018 are the same person, and that they are the same person as JimmyJoe87, who in turn was banned as a sockpuppet of Marquis de la Eirron. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

16 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


On September 15, 2018, I noticed that new editor PlediasvonHma has been making the same types of edits, to the some of the same types of articles (and in certain cases to the same exact articles), that Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppets JimmyJoe87, FinalXFantasy and the users of IP accounts 194.176.105.138 and 174.126.233.219 made prior to being uncovered as sock puppets and banned. The area of interest common to all of these editors is minority (whether ethnic or religious) politicians. All of these editors also make the same types of edits, to wit, "updated" photographs of politicians (even when the article in question is about past service of such politicians) and largescale changes to photos to make them all 75px irespective of the size that had been used previously in such article (ostensibly because the article "would be too long" if more visible photos were used; wanting to shorten articles also was the purported reason given by prior Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppets when the made mass deletions to longstanding articles. Recent edits to the following articles show how taken over where JimmyJoe87, 194.176.105.138, 174.126.233.219 and/or FinalXFantasy left off when they were banned:

The edits made by PlediasvonHma, and his purported reasons for making such changes (complete with the typical Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppet shark and aggressiveness) can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PlediasvonHma

In conclusion, I strongly suspect that PlediasvonHma, who started editing on September 15, 2018, is the same person as JimmyJoe87, FinalXFantasy and the users of IP accounts 194.176.105.138 and 174.126.233.219, each of which, in turn, has been banned as a sockpuppet of Marquis de la Eirron. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

The editor who is calling me out has continuously made huge changes in articles, without asking anyones permission. If you look at his history you will see that this is true. I have merely reverted his edits to what they previously were and asked him to go to the talk page if he wished to make changes again. The editor says my responses are aggressive, yet if you look at my reasoning for reverting or making those changes they are not aggressive at all. If you look at the edits I made to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress&action=history you will see that I reverted the image size to 75px, which was the size they have been for many years. The other editor increased the sizes for no reason and so I reverted it to its original format. PlediasvonHma (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this matter has been closed already, and PlediasvonHma has is the latest sockpuppet of the Marquis de la Eirron's to have been banned, I will respond to his "defense" because of the accusations he lobbed at me.
As someone who has been editing for years under one and only one name, my record is there for all to see, as are the reasons for my edits. As I explained when I increased the size of the photos in the List of Hispanic Members of Congress article, the column where the pictures were placed had large white gaps and smallish photos of the members of Congress, and by increasing the size of the photos to 100px it filled out the column completely and provided a more visible portrait. And the changes made by PlediasvonHma did not revert my edit; they were altogether new edits, with his typical "updated photos" and 75px size that Marquis socks have been trying to force upon every article that lists members of Congress that are racial, ethnic or religious minorities.
That returning to the status quo ante is not PlediasvonHma's goal is proven by the fact that, a few minutes after he decreased the size of all photos in the Hispanic members of Congress article, he decreased the size of every photograph in the Jewish members of Congress article from 90px (which had been the size of portraits in the article for years) to the Marquis-favored 75px, and replaced several photos with "updated" ones in the process (plus made one additional change). The sock did not provide an explanation for his wholesale changes, and only when I reverted his edit (but kept a couple of his photo replacements that I agree were more encyclopedic and kept his reordering of the info in the note for the Eric Cantor entry) did he purport to have reduced the suze of every photo because otherwise the article would "become too long" when new Jewish members of Congress are elected, which is a solution searching for a problem if I've ever seen one.
But, in the end, whether the size of photographs in the Hispanic members of Congress article should be 100px or 75px, or whether the photo size in the Jewish members of Congress article should be 90px or 75px, are immaterial to the subject at hand. This investigation was reopened (yet again) not because PlediasvonHma's choice of photo size is harmful to Wikiledia, but because PlediasvonHma is the latest of the dozens upon dozens of sock puppets that the Marquis de la Eirron has employed over the past decade or so in an attempt to circumvent his lifetime ban. I strongly susoected that PlediasvonHma was a Marquis sock last night when I asked that the investigation be reopened, and his "defense" proves to me beyond all doubt that he is the same editor as JimmyJoe87, FinalXFantasy, et al. It seems that the sockpuppet investigators were similarly convinced, because they already banned PlediasvonHma. I hope that the editor formerly known as the Marquis de la Eirron finds a more productive use for his time than to try to get around his editing ban through transparently obvious sockpuppets. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed + Grunklewink (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


On August 24, 2018, the IP address 194.176.105.138 was suspended for one month because it was found to be a sockpuppet of Marquis de la Eirron. On September 28, 2018, just a few days following the expiration of the suspension, the IP address 194.176.105.138 went back to where it (and where other recently banned Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppets, such as FinalXFantasy, FinalXFantesy and PlediasvonHma) had left off, with largescale edits to articles regarding politicians convicted of crimes (old favorites List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes (to which 194.176.105.138 and FinalXFantasy had made large edits in August) and List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes (to which FinalXFantasy and FinalXFantesy had made large edits in August), plus two related apparent additions to Marquis de la Eirron's stable (List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses and List of United States state officials convicted of federal corruption offenses)) and party-switching politicians (old favorite List of British politicians who have crossed the floor, to which 194.176.105.138 had made large edits in July). In addition, the editor who resumed using IP address 194.176.105.138 right after the suspension ended has been engaging in other telltale conduct of Marquis de la Eirron, namely, "updating" photographs of politicians and editing articles on party-switching politicians and government officials with felony convictions. Here are the user contributions of the IP address 194.176.105.138: [[138]].

In conclusion, I strongly suspect that the person who resumed using the IP address 194.176.105.138 on September 28 (a few days after its 30-day suspension ended) is the same person that edited the IP address in the month prior to the suspension, and, thus, a Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppet. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk note: case was misfiled, I have corrected it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This address appears to be a static IP of the National Health Service, and judging by the long history of abuse I'd say it's likely an employee of the hospital, not a patient. Anonblocked for 3 years. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 October 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

On October 18, 2018, I noticed that the editor that has been using, since August 30 2018, the IP account 82.29.185.75, and the editor that used IP account 82.132.215.137 on October 11-12, 2018, have been making the same types of edits, to the some of the same types of articles (and in certain cases to the same exact articles), that Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppets JimmyJoe87, PlediasvonHma, FinalXFantasy and the users of IP accounts 86.11.92.125, 194.176.105.138 and 174.126.233.219 made prior to being uncovered as sock puppets and banned. To be precise, IP account 82.29.185.75 was very active editing such articles from August 30 to September 14, 2018 when the account was suspended for a month--ironically, for his unruly behavior, edit wars, threats against editors posting on his user page, and block evasion (the fact that he was a sock puppet of Marquis de la Eirron had gone undetected for those 16 days). During the suspension, IP account 82.132.215.137 edited quite a few of those same types of articles (and, often, exact same articles) on October 11-12, which presumably was the only time that the editor had access to such computer. On October 18, a few days after his month-long suspension expired, IP address 82.29.185.75 went back to work, exactly as before. The areas of interest common to all of these editors are minority (whether ethnic or religious) politicians, British politicians, and politicians convicted of crimes. All of these editors also make the same types of edits, to wit, "updated" photographs of politicians (even when the article in question is about past service of such politicians) and largescale formatting changes and deletions to articles (including making all photographs size 75x and the deletion of "unnecessary" biographical information, such as past offices held). Edits from today to the following articles show how 82.29.185.75 has taken over where JimmyJoe87, PlediasvonHma, 86.11.92.125, 194.176.105.138, 174.126.233.219 and/or FinalXFantasy left off when they were banned:

And before he was suspended back in September, 82.29.185.75 made the following edits, which also provide strong evidence that he is a sockpuppet of Marquis de la Eirron:

Meanwhile, the edits made by the editor that used IP account 82.132.215.137 from October 11 to 12 are also the same type as those made by JimmyJoe87, PlediasvonHma, 86.11.92.125, 194.176.105.138, 174.126.233.219 and/or FinalXFantasy before they were banned (and that IP account 82.29.185.75 made prior to his month-long suspension and since he returned on October 18):

The edits made by 82.29.185.75, and his purported reasons for making such changes (complete with the typical Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppet snark and aggressiveness) can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.29.185.75.

The edits made by 82.132.215.137, and his purported reasons for making such changes, can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.132.215.137

In conclusion, I strongly suspect that the person using the IP addresses 82.29.185.75 and 82.132.215.137 is the same person as JimmyJoe87, FinalXFantasy, PlediasvonHma and the users of IP accounts 86.11.92.125, 194.176.105.138 and 174.126.233.219, each of which, in turn, has been banned as a sockpuppet of Marquis de la Eirron. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

As you can see from the editor above, I've been making sourced and accurate updates to many pages. Maybe if the above editor kept pages up to date, we wouldn't have this problem, but he doesn't. Instead he complains when I add up to date images. 82.29.185.75 (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, it is not my job to "keep pages up to date"; I am one of many editors of the articles in question. I also am not the only editor that sometimes has to revert unproductive edits.
Number two, replacing a subject of an encyclopedia article's photograph from the time of his most prominent achievements with a more recent photograph is not "keep[ing] pages up to date," it it treating encyclopedia articles as if they were Facebook pages. People don't go to Wikipedia to see recent photographs of the subjects of articles; they go to Wikipedia to be informed about the subject. When they read an encyclopedia article on, say, a Prime Minister of the UK, they expect to see the infobox photo depict the subject *as he looked when he was Prime Minister*, not as he looks today.
Number three, this is a sockpuppet investigation, not a debate on which photographs to include in infoboxes (by the way, I sometimes agree with your photo edits, and in such case I don't revert them). There are plenty of Wikipedia editors that follow the rules and don't resort to sockpuppetry, and they are the ones that get to participate in talk-page debates about what photo should be included in the infobox of an article about a former officeholder. You are here because you were banned from Wikipedia years ago and keep coming back using sockpuppets.AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replacing out of date images, with current images, when that person is still prolific in society. Many of the images you have been adding are poor quality, fuzzy and are not hi-resolution. So I have replaced them with ones that are.
If you don't want to keep pages updated then I don't see what the problem with me doing it is?
Incorrect on what you put about the UK Prime Minister as Tony Blair, who stopped being Prime Minister in 2007, has as his main picture one from 2012. Why? Because it is a better picture and also he is still active politically behind the scenes. It is the same with John Major, as there are multiple interviews and articles where Major is talking about current politics. 82.29.185.75 (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

09 November 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Clear WP:DUCK case, with new IPs editing Marquis de la Eirron favourites List of LGBT members of the United States Congress, List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom and List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

09 November 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

On November 9, 2018, I noticed that the editor that has been using, since November 8, 2018, the IP account 82.132.217.57 has been making the same types of edits, to the some of the same types of articles (and in certain cases to the same exact articles), that Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppets JimmyJoe87, PlediasvonHma, FinalXFantasy and the users of IP accounts 86.11.92.125, 194.176.105.138, 174.126.233.219, 82.29.185.75 and 82.132.215.137 made prior to being uncovered as sock puppets and banned. The areas of interest common to all of these editors are minority politicians and politicians convicted of crimes. Edits since November 8, 2018 to the following articles show how the current user of IP account 82.132.217.57 has taken over where JimmyJoe87, PlediasvonHma, 86.11.92.125, 194.176.105.138, 174.126.233.219, 82.29.185.75, 82.132.215.137 and/or FinalXFantasy left off when they were banned:

The edits made by 82.132.217.57 can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.132.217.57

In conclusion, I strongly suspect that the person using the IP address 82.132.217.57 is the same person as JimmyJoe87, FinalXFantasy, PlediasvonHma and the users of IP accounts 86.11.92.125, 194.176.105.138, 174.126.233.219, 82.29.185.75 and 82.132.215.137, each of which, in turn, has been banned as a sockpuppet of Marquis de la Eirron. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Closing as IP hasn't edited in a while. Sro23 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20 November 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

WP:DUCK case, editing classic Marquis de la Eirron targets such as this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 62.6.52.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which is fairly clearly being used by the same editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • @Cordless Larry:, I've blocked both listed IPs for a while, but they're too far apart to rangeblock, so a liberal application of semi-protection might be the best option if he shows up again. Courcelles (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06 December 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New account editing on very familiar topics, including the creation of Category:Macedonian politicians convicted of crimes and edits to List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States and List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom. Here, they remove the same Operation Black Vote material that was removed by a previous IP sock here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I have added sourced and referenced additions to the articles in question. Crimm432 (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't exempt you from WP:BADSOCK, I'm afraid. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the Talk Page, as you requested, the changes for the article amount ethnic minorities, which are all referenced. Please could add those up to date additions to the article. Crimm432 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Courcelles, sorry to bother you, but do you think you could take a look at this one? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 December 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

On December 19, 2018, I noticed that the editor that has been using, since December 5, 2018, the IP account 62.6.52.8 has been making the same types of edits, to the some of the same types of articles (and in certain cases to the same exact articles), that Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppets JimmyJoe87, PlediasvonHma, FinalXFantasy and the users of IP accounts 86.11.92.125, 194.176.105.138, 174.126.233.219, 82.29.185.75, 82.132.217.57 and 82.132.215.137 made prior to being uncovered as sock puppets and banned. The areas of interest common to all of these editors are ethnic minority politicians, LGBT politicians and UK politicians. Edits since December 12, 2018 to the following articles show how the current user of IP account 62.6.52.8 has taken over where JimmyJoe87, PlediasvonHma, 86.11.92.125, 194.176.105.138, 174.126.233.219, 82.29.185.75, 82.132.217.57, 82.132.215.137 and/or FinalXFantasy left off when they were banned:

  • Numerous articles on UK politicians (some of whom also are LGBT) in which he made similar changes as Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppets made to articles on UK and LGBT politicians prior to their being banned as sockpuppets, as well as by other Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppets who used a temporary IP account that was not suspended because he discontinued its use)

The edits made by 62.6.52.8 can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.6.52.8

In conclusion, I strongly suspect that the person using the IP address 62.6.52.8 is the same person as JimmyJoe87, FinalXFantasy, PlediasvonHma and the users of IP accounts 86.11.92.125, 194.176.105.138, 174.126.233.219, 82.29.185.75, 82.132.217.57, 82.132.217.57 and 82.132.215.137, each of which, in turn, has been banned as a sockpuppet of Marquis de la Eirron. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now IP address 62.6.52.8 has turned to that other topic that is irresistible to Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppets: politicians convicted of crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes&action=history There's no doubt that this is a duck. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP address 62.6.52.8 keeps removing all doubt that it is being used by a Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppet, making major edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_American_and_Pacific_Islands_American_conservatism_in_the_United_States&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_conservatism_in_the_United_States&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_party_switchers_in_the_United_States&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_the_United_States_Senate&action=history, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives&action=history, mostly to post "update" photos, and also has "updated" photos of several politicians. That's over 200 posts by the newest Marquis de la Eirron sockpuppet using such IP address since December 5, and he keeps going and going. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I've blocked 62.6.52.8 to prevent further disruption, since this is clearly a WP:DUCK case. A checkuser would still be helpful, to find any sleepers. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, we cannot conduct CU on IPs. Closing. GABgab 18:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09 January 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Very obviously the latest Marquis de la Eirron sock, changing images at List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom and List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I just took a look at the articles edited by Chickkenn09, and not only did he make major edits to List of British politicians who have crossed the floor, he also "updated" the infobox photo for dozens upon dozens of British politicians. I would be shocked if the editor wasn't a Marquis de la Eirron sock puppet. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
based on technical history and PicMonkies contribs at Commons. Based on these results I am changing the result for BBuyr to  Inconclusive. If anyone wants more detail on why I'm blocking them anyway, please email me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

WP:DUCK case, with the IP editing classic Marquis de la Eirron sock targets, including List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes and List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom. Has previously been blocked as a sock, but the block has expired and the socking resumed. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Sleighey88, who is also editing a characteristic set of articles, including List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes, List of British politicians who have crossed the floor and List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Sleighey88 is  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. I've also blocked the IP for one year (the last block was for six months) based on the block history and the obvious behavioral similarities. @Cordless Larry: You might want to look at G5ing the pages created by the latest sock - as usual, a lot of categories. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


02 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New editors who has immediately recreated two categories originally created by Sleighey88 and then deleted, Category:Central African Republic politicians convicted of crimes and Category:Armenian politicians convicted of crimes. Same characteristic behaviour relating to images of politicians too. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. UnitedAgain4 is also editing the same pages as Sleighey88 was. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Next time feel free to block such an obvious sock. There's no need to run another check so soon. Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bbb23. I was actually meaning to ask about whether I could just go ahead and block these cases myself. I will do in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: Any admin can block a user whom they think is likely a sock. You don't even have to file a report here. However, you should come here if (1) it's not clear to you and you need more eyes, (2) you think a check is needed (in which instance you should explain why), (3) you want to file it "for the record", or (4) you feel you're INVOLVED.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09 August 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The latest socks of this user (User:Hollahopping, User:Fhatty34; User:XieXie97; User:Slivo32; User:LeeLilo) were blocked on August 6th. One of the unblock requests for User:Hollahopping says "I just tried to start editing the 1924 General Election and seem to have been blocked and I am unsure as to why. The overwhelming amount of my edits so far on wikipedia have been adding the names of the Members of Parliament who have lost their seats from January 1910 to 1923. I was hoping to start on the 1924 MPs today since I had finished the other lists." [139]

User:FollyAllAgain was created on August 6th. FollyAllAgain has now created exactly the list of MPs described [140].

I guess a checkuser might be useful as this editor seems to have a history of making multiple accounts, but that is your call! Slp1 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another one: the similarly name User:Hollahoppings also created on August 6th, and has made the usual politician related edit. [141] Given this, I do think that a checkuser for sleepers etc might be a good idea.Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FollyAllAgain is also back at William Wilberforce adding the same information[142][143] as Hollahopping [144][145] Slp1 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed.  Blocked without tags. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18 October 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same characteristic interest as previous socks in LGBT and ethnic minority politicians and in politicians convicted of crimes and who have changed party. Can we have a checkuser to see if there are any other socks currently operating? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed and blocked. Running a check for sleepers is a waste of time in this case. In the future, such requests should be declined. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

WP:DUCK case of changing images of British politicians back to those that were changed to by socks. AlbanGeller (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marquis_de_la_Eirron/Archive/1&oldid=1142740357"