LouisPhilippeCharles

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
17 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Createing the same sort of categories Category:Grand Duchesses of Mecklenburg-Strelitz Category:Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Category:Hereditary Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, while LouisPhilippeCharles made the exact same ones for Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Category:Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Category:Hereditary Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Category:Grand Duchesses of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. I'm from England is also making the same sort of templates, Template:Princesses of Savoy by marriage (made by LouisPhilippeCharles), while User:I'm From England/Duchesses of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and User:I'm From England/Duchesses of Mecklenburg-Schwerin by marriage are being created by I'm from England. Very similar editing. - dwc lr (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Very  Likely. The person is clearly jumping ISPs but has the same patterns. I have also verified with a CU on another wiki, who confirms this. –MuZemike 22:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


85.226.44.57 began to be used for the first time less than two hours after LouisPhilippeCharles's plea to unblock his sockpuppet, I'm From England, was refused by an admin on 18 January 2011 here. All 85.226.44.57 edits relate, like LouisPhilippeCharles's, to historical royalty, but the first few were on articles LouisPhilippeCharles had not previously edited -- thus allowing him to remain below our radar. But all of the most recent edits are to articles LPC had previously edited and are bios of the royalty of France or Lorraine -- the prevalent topics of LouisPhilippeCharles's edits before he was indefinitely blocked. FactStraight (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
26 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

New sock after anon was blocked yesterday. Edits typical of LouisPhilippeCharles: unsourced trivial details about personalities, appearance & relationships of historical French royalty here and here. FactStraight (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
10 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Made edit [1] identical to this one [2] from a known sock. Created articles on the consorts of the Duke of Modena, which matches creations by LouisPhilippeCharles (cf. Vittoria Farnese and Maria Caterina Farnese) DrKiernan (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
17 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

An admin has suggested that this pattern of sockpuppetry be documented so that more effective corrective action can be pursued, since the proliferation of sockpuppets by this vandal is accelerating. As shown in the previous sockpuppetry findings, indefinitely blocked User:LouisPhilippeCharles maintains that his editing despite being blocked is beneficial to Wikipedia, should not be blocked, and that he does not accept that he may not edit Wikipedia. Thus he continues to use sockpuppets to edit, creating new ones or changing IPs whenever one is blocked. His pattern consists of using socks or anonymous IPs that 1. were created since he was blocked Dec. 2010, 2. make minor edits on a variety of subjects to deflect detection, but 3. make substantive edits to bios on European royalty and related topics (such as where they lived or are buried) 4. particularly articles he has edited in the past as LouisPhilippeCharles or while using an earlier sockpuppet. Diffs reflecting LouisPhilippeCharles' pattern & revealing these editors as his socks:

1.Picture Perfect Princehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Picture_Perfect_Prince 2.Peaceingalaxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peaceingalaxy 3.User:90.193.109.100 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.193.109.100 4.86.140.6.242 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.140.6.242 5.98.204.152.203 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.204.152.203 6.90.193.109.129 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.193.109.129 7.90.193.109.82 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.193.109.82 8.90.193.109.148 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.193.109.148 FactStraight (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments



19 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

After this IP had been used for a miscellany of edits (including vandalism) to Wikipedia, and following a five month hiatus, the IP began to be used on 2 May 2008 by now indefinitely blocked LouisPhilippeCharles, simultaneously with other socks, to make edits on bios of historical royalty and places associated with them. These articles were also sometimes edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, his known sock Tbharding or other IPs he's used, as here, here and here, which proves his interest in them. This sock went unused for over a year until 23 July 2010, and then while blocked LouisPhilippeCharles revived it to make anonymous edits on articles he had heavily edited previously, here, here, and here. He has even used this sock previously to edit one of the articles he edited today. FactStraight (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
21 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Latest IP created to change article which LPC regularly vandalizes as himself or using socks as here, here and yesterday here. FactStraight (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


21 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

LPC has edited this one many times, including under his [User:Tbharding FactStraight (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
7 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Editing same sort of articles. Making same templates proven sock was working on.[3] Template:Duchesses of Mecklenburg-Schwerin - dwc lr (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
22 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

User was originally indeffed on de.wikipedia.org as de:User:Sümpf, then de:User:LouisPhilippeCharles was indeffed as a sock of that user. Behavioural evidence also looks convincing to me, although I didn't look too closely. IP is obvious. Note that edits reach very far back. Could something like http://www.usaproxyserver.com/ be involved? Not sure whether to request CU or not. Might be worthwhile for getting further socks, but I don't know how much effort it is. Hans Adler 09:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, but I take it that this just means technically unrelated? For the record, the block at de was prompted by de:Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2010/11/23#Benutzer:LouisPhilippeCharles (erl.). Translation of the IP's report: "It appears to me that LouisPhilippeCharles is a sockpuppet of Sümpf, who has been indefinitely blocked for persistent undiscussed page moves after multiple warnings. The account is older, but the undiscussed page moves of the account LouisPhilippeCharles (who has also been warned already) only start after Sümpf's block. For a CU report Sümpf's last contributions should be too old, but the behavioural pattern is markedly similar, as is the topical focus on nobility of the early modern era."
I see now that the IP is in the wrong time zone (in contrast to previous IPs). However, for the record I want to note that there are numerous commonalities, and in particular there is this: [4], on an article started by Tbharding. It might be worthwhile to monitor this IP. Hans Adler 13:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Technically unrelated" is correct. It sounds like the block on de. was based on behavioral similarities rather than CU data. Does that sound right? TNXMan 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It does not look as if a checkuser was ever involved, and basically the block was just an admin's reaction to a vandalism report by an IP. Hans Adler 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I think we can leave Sumpf unblocked. The IP has only edited once recently, so your suggestion to monitor it for future activity would probably be best. TNXMan 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
01 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same style, same articles. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
06 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

The usual frantic categorization of assorted articles about nobles and royals. There has been a steady traffic of IP socks, mostly registered in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles, but now a new named and very active sockpuppet suspect has emerged. Please check for sleepers. Just for the record, the account name was originally The Duchess of Cambridge (talk · contribs), so in case of blocking that one will have to be blocked as well. Favonian (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

A  Likely match, no sleepers that I saw. TNXMan 11:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Extensive, complex edits to articles & templates by a brand new editor, active only since LouisPhilippeCharles was blocked indefinitely, who uploads changes to numerous articles in rapid succession. Editing the same & similar templates, e.g., Template:Princesses of Savoy by marriage and Template:Princesses of Lorraine made by User:LouisPhilippeCharles), while Anne of Lorraine and Prince Charles Maurice of Monaco are new creations by I Really Love Cheese. Usual LPC edits to the names, titles and life details of members of royal dynasties, especially to articles LPC has previously edited. Please delete all of the sockpuppet's edits, as that is the only thing which discourages his vandalism for a while. FactStraight (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


03 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

IP only came into being & largely edits articles recently edited by confirmed LouisPhilippeCharles sock I Really Love Cheese after that sock was blocked. Makes same kind of edits: names, titles, locales associated with dead Euro royals, especially the House of Savoy-Carignano, whose template LPC created and has used almost exclusively to edit other articles on this dynasty (either as LPC or as one of his sockpuppets, i.e. Tbharding). FactStraight (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Extensive, complex edits to articles & templates by a brand new editor, active only since LouisPhilippeCharles was blocked indefinitely, who uploads changes to numerous articles in rapid succession. Editing the same & similar articles, often most recently edited, substantively, by User:LouisPhilippeCharles). Usual LPC edits to the names, titles and life details of members of royal dynasties, especially to articles LPC has previously edited. Please delete all of the sockpuppet's edits, as that is the only thing which discourages his vandalism for a while. FactStraight (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
21 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Extensive edits to articles by a brand new editor, active only since LouisPhilippeCharles was blocked indefinitely, who uploads changes to several articles in rapid succession. Editing the same & similar articles, often most recently edited, substantively, by LouisPhilippeCharles. Usual LPC edits to the names, titles and life details of members of royal dynasties, especially to articles LPC has previously edited, while making occasional fake or minor edits to non-royalty related topics in order to deflect detection. Please delete all of the sockpuppet's edits, as that is the only thing which discourages his vandalism for a while. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


22 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Extensive edits to articles by a brand new editor, active only since LouisPhilippeCharles was blocked indefinitely, who uploads changes to several articles in rapid succession. Editing the same & similar articles, often most recently edited, substantively, by LouisPhilippeCharles. Usual LPC edits to the names, titles and life details of members of royal dynasties, especially to articles LPC has previously edited, while making occasional fake or minor edits to non-royalty related topics in order to deflect detection. Please delete all of the sockpuppet's edits, as that is the only thing which discourages his vandalism for a while. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
22 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Extensive, sophisticated edits to articles by a brand new editor, active only since LouisPhilippeCharles and his most recent anonymous IPs were blocked indefinitely, who uploads changes to several articles in rapid succession. Editing the same & similar articles, often most recently edited, substantively, by LouisPhilippeCharles. Usual LPC edits to the names, titles and life details of members of royal dynasties, especially to articles LPC has previously edited (including additions to LouisPhilippeCharles's page, edits to which have also been placed under block due to ongoing abuse), while making occasional fake or minor edits to non-royalty related topics in order to deflect detection. Please delete all of the sockpuppet's edits, as that is the only thing which discourages his vandalism for a while. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
06 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing the same & similar obscure bios of royalty, often most recently edited, substantively, by LouisPhilippeCharles. They are the usual LPC edits; over-linking, flip-flopping names & titles, adding photos and redundant details (here and here) to articles which are already over-detailed, especially to bios LPC has previously edited as here and here. He creates another new IP to revert my edit of his previous IP less than an hour later here, then uses it to revert me on another royalty article here. Last year he edit-warred to change Queen Mercedes of Spain's maiden name from "of Orleans" to "d'Orleans" here, but he's now decided to reverse that change unilaterally here. Please delete all of the sockpuppet's edits, as that is the only thing which discourages his vandalism for a while. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


07 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing the same & similar obscure bios of royalty, often most recently edited, substantively, by LouisPhilippeCharles. Since his IPs, 81.148.221.251 and 86.154.176.146 have just been blocked, he's opened a new IP to vandalize articles (here, here and here) notoriously vandalized by LouisPhilippeCharles in the past (here, here and here). They are the usual LPC edits; over-linking, flip-flopping names & titles, adding trivial, redundant details to articles which are already over-detailed on bios LPC has previously edited. Please delete all of the sockpuppet's edits, as that is the only thing which discourages his vandalism for a while. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


08 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing the same & similar bios of royalty, previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles. As soon as one IP is blocked, he opens another and edits royalty articles as an act of defiance. The edits are the usual LPC edits; flip-flopping names & titles, adding trivial or redundant details (here and here and here and here and here ) to articles which are already over-detailed, especially to bios LPC has previously edited as here and here and here and here and here. Please delete all of the sockpuppet's edits, as that is the only thing which discourages his vandalism for a while. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
13 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Account created August 31, and today it performs a series of rapid, inane edits to own user/talk page, enabling him to rename a series of articles, all of which are previous stomping grounds of LPC. Ducky enough for a block (and I have done so), but the long gestation period makes me suspect that there are sleepers lurking in the grass. Favonian (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Possible – CU isn't telling me much, but I think the editing patterns/behaviors nail it on its own. –MuZemike 22:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll close this one. Favonian (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Quickly restores deleted edits of socks of indefinitely blocked LouisPhilippeCharles. FactStraight (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: MuZemike already protected the current article of interest. Not taking any action on the IPs at this point. Marking as close. Elockid (Talk) 04:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual: a series of recently created or revived ip's used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with no or minor edits to non-royalty articles. These ducks all quack just alike. FactStraight (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I blocked the latest IP; no purpose blocking the other one, as he has probably hopped away from that one by now. –MuZemike 01:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


14 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual: a series of recently created or revived ip's used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with no or minor edits to non-royalty articles. These ducks all quack just alike... FactStraight (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
20 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual: a series of recently created or revived ip's used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with no or minor edits to non-royalty articles. These ducks all quack just alike. Please revert his edits once his sockpuppet status is determined. FactStraight (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
10 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual: a series of recently created or revived ip's used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty, nobility and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with no or minor edits to non-royalty articles. These ducks all quack just alike. FactStraight (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
12 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual: a series of recently created or revived ip's used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty, nobility and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with no or minor edits to non-royalty articles. These ducks all quack just alike. FactStraight (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


14 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual: a series of recently created or revived ip's used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty, nobility and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with no or minor edits to non-royalty articles. These ducks all quack just alike. FactStraight (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
17 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


LouisPhilippeCharles's inability to resist vandalism by adulterating Wikipedia's articles into the "fairy tales" that he prefers to reality is clearly illustrated in his substiution of his favorite title, "Prince de Guemenee", for the House of Rohan's correct, main title, "Duke de Montbazon", as shown in this diff. In addition, there is the usual: a series of recently created or revived ip's used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty, nobility and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with no or minor edits to non-royalty articles. These ducks all quack just alike. Please revert the edits made using this IP. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
18 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual: a series of recently created or revived socks used mostly to edit, in rapid succession, the names, titles, portraits & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty, nobility and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with no or minor edits to non-royalty articles. This one focuses mostly on uploading images. These ducks all quack just alike. Please revert the edits made using this IP. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Tenuous check, IMV, but there's just enough grounds to proceed. Anyway, these accounts are Red X Unrelated. AGK [•] 11:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Another case of a quacking puppet FactStraight (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
30 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


there is the usual: recently created or revived ip used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty, nobility and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with minor or blank decoy edits to non-royalty articles. Since being indefinitely blocked 7 January 2011, he varies his vandalism by editing a broader range of topics and, to seduce tolerance, he mixes in innocuous corrections with edits that impose his preferences on royalty articles. But these socks all quack just alike. Please revert the edits made using this IP FactStraight (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
05 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

there is the usual: recently created or revived ip used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty, nobility and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with minor or blank decoy edits to non-royalty articles. Since being indefinitely blocked 7 January 2011, he varies his vandalism by editing a broader range of topics and, to seduce tolerance, he mixes in innocuous corrections with edits that impose his preferences on royalty articles. But these socks all quack just alike. Please revert the edits made using this IP FactStraight (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
09 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


LouisPhilippeCharles is becoming more creative to elude detection: he's highjacked a named account, first created November 5, 2010, of a user who mostly edited child actor bios, never edited royalty/nobility articles and had gone dormant since 7 January 2011, which LouisPhilippeCharles revived on 30 October 2011 to vandalize royalty articles again, first creating a similarly-named sock, and uploading old royalty portraits here. Then on 6 December 2011 he uses the hi-jacked sock to vastly expand an article on Louis of Valois, which he had previously created using another sock on 17 October 2011. He became obsessed with fleshing out this fake bio, and on 29 November, to protect his work from discovery & deletion, he fabricated a name and Romanian background for the IP he had highjacked (he's really at university in England). The Louis of Valois article he's building is on a baby royal who lived for 8 months in the 1500s, and for whom he has created a complete bio, ancestry and list of titles -- with 7 references! He's done the same with the article Charles Martel, Duke of Calabria. What gives him away, as always, is his pre-occupation with the most trivial facts about royalty/nobility: their names, titles, portraits, palaces/tombs and irrelevant details which lean heavily on family kinships: In particular this type of edit is virtually unique to LouisPhilippeCharles, detailing exact titles which weren't in use in that era (e.g. "Royal Highness"), emphasizing relationships as an infant and burial places. These socks all still quack just alike. Please revert the edits made using this sock and his others, and delete the Louis of Valois article, which isn't even worth re-directing to his father. FactStraight (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following are  Confirmed as each other:

The following are  Confirmed as each other:

The relation between the two groups are  Inconclusive, but I can say that dynamic IPs are being used. –MuZemike 07:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new IP immediately creates a sophisticated German family tree (Ahnentafel)? Or LouisPhilippeCharles is back. There is the usual: recently created ip used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty, nobility and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with minor or blank decoy edits to non-royalty articles. Since being indefinitely blocked 7 January 2011, he varies his vandalism by editing a broader range of topics and, to seduce tolerance, he mixes in innocuous corrections with edits that impose his preferences on royalty articles. But these socks all quack just alike. Please revert the edits made using this IP FactStraight (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is the usual: recently created or recently revived ip used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty, nobility and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with minor or blank decoy edits to non-royalty articles. Since being indefinitely blocked 7 January 2011, he varies his vandalism by editing a broader range of topics and, to seduce tolerance, he mixes in innocuous corrections with edits that impose his preferences on royalty articles. But these socks all quack just alike. Please revert the edits made using this sock and these IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactStraight (talk • contribs) 02:33, December 14, 2011‎

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
15 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new editor immediately restores scandalous gossip about a princess who died centuries ago -- without sources? Or LouisPhilippeCharles is back. He's simply re-inserting scandal into this bio that has been repeatedly deleted, most recently by an anon a few days ago. He stopped inserting fake sources (under the name of his known sock Tbharding because these were detected and deleted. There is the usual: recently created account used mostly to edit the names, titles & obscure life & death details of obscure royalty, nobility and their lovers previously edited by LouisPhilippeCharles, with minor or blank decoy edits to non-royalty articles. But these socks all quack just alike. Please revert the edits made using this IP FactStraight (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Okay, but you know the problem here as well as I do: LouisPhilippeCharles has had a pattern for years of creating accounts that he uses once or twice, then returns to weeks or months later. Lately, he has been high-jacking accounts and using them. His purpose is to overwhelm Wikipedia: "Although I'm indefinitely blocked, since I will never stop editing under different guises, you may as well give up and let me edit as if I had never been blocked." So what I look for is his pattern: Is the account one that has just been created? Or, if not, are the only substantive edits to royalty or nobility? Is it an article LouisPhilippeCharles edited before? Do the edits focus on 1. title 2. name 3. childhood tales or 4. marital or betrothal tales. If the edits are matters of fact (such as dates, done to "prove" that his edits are constructive), has this account been used to make such edits before LouisPhilippeCharles was blocked in April 2010. In addition there are certain very specific edits that almost no one else makes but him; such as insertion of the rarely used but official names of basilicas where royalty is buried. On the other hand, his edits are usually trivial: he almost never edits substantive actions of royalty, such as their martial deeds, or their politics or role in history. So unless I see one of these markers, I don't recommend blocking: in fact, there are a number of accounts I suspect he's using, but don't reco for blocks because the pattern isn't clear enough yet. Certainly I may sometimes be wrong. But in the vast majority of cases where blocks have been imposed as socks of LPC's, you will find the pattern above. He will stop when convinced that his edits won't stick, not otherwise. FactStraight (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Checkuser note: All accounts seem Red X Unrelated on technical checkuser grounds.  Frank  |  talk  15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Enredados acknowledges that he is blocked but continues to edit Wikipedia under this and other socks. He refuses to abide by the terms necessary for his account to be unblocked, and defiantly and constantly edits Wikipedia under other accounts and anons. The other socks and anons exhibit the same pattern without admitting it: accounts created or revived since LouisPhilippeCharles was banned over a year ago, often within the last few days, editing mostly royalty and nobility bios, concentrating on titles, names, weddings and burials rather than their actions, minimal edit summaries or sources added. Edits to other articles are decoys to avoid detection. The vast majority of these I simply revert without seeking to block, but lately he has stepped up activity and begun edit warring again. These are a tiny fraction of his socks: he LIVES to edit royalty/nobility on Wikipedia. But occsionally he needs to know he remains blocked for a reason and that there are consequences to ignoring Wiki's rules: I repeatedly point out to him that if he would stop socking for 6 months he could be re-instated -- but his addiction is too strong. FactStraight (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Geographically Red X Unrelated: None of these accounts edit from the same country. However, all the named accounts (except Lynx-Q) appear to be editing a great deal without being logged-in (though I make no comment as to from which IP) so there may be some logged-out abuse that ought to be addressed with liberal DUCK blocks.

Given the  Stale data for LouisPhilippeCharles, I am unable to make a determination as to whether any of these socks have the same owner. However, the geographical disparity certainly matches what we have previously found with LPC socks, so I encourage the use of behavioural evidence in order to make a determination. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think that Enredados is probably LPC, from what I can see in my query results; but an actual technical link is  Inconclusive.

Earphone123 is  Confirmed to have the same operator as Templatier and HammyDoo (DUCK-blocked LPC socks). I found no sleepers and made no IP blocks. AGK [•] 13:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

02 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Edits to History of the French line of succession [5] were reverted by FactStraight [6] as "rv sock of indefinitely blocked LouisPhilippeCharles". 1st IP subsequently reverted three times [7], [8], [9]. When warned of WP:3RR, the same revert was then made under 2nd IP [10] without further explanation. It looks awfully ducky to me - even if the two IPs aren't LPC, it has every appearance of the use of multiple IPs to flout 3RR. Temporary semi-protection of page also requested. Agricolae (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Yes, based on his now notoriously established pattern, this is indefinitely blocked LouisPhilippeCharles once again violating his ban in one of his thousands of ongoing efforts to magnify the status and elongate bios with royalty trivia, specifically, his favorite royals, the House of Bourbon. We know it's him because the anon is recently created, adds trivial facts about royalty (their titles, styles, family gossip, burial sites, etc -- never anything about their historically significant deeds), uploads lots of photos of old portraits on dubious legal grounds, rarely adds reliable sources, and seldom comments in the edit summary. Recently he's taken to correcting typos and minor errors, as in this French succession article, in hopes that when he's reverted as a blocked vandal (usually by me) another editor will restore his edits, thus allowing him to continue editing Wikipedia despite the now year and a half long block. Although he periodically pleads, under socks, to be re-instated, he ignores admins' advice to seek reinstatement by desisting from editing under socks for 6 months, because he has no intention (and, I think, no power of self-restraint) to abstain from editing royalty on Wikipedia for more than 24 hours. See here, where he admits using socks and says that less than half of those sock edits have been reverted yet! He's one of LouisPhilippeCharle's proliferating ducklings. Please block & revert. FactStraight (talk) 18:49, 2 June 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
05 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Hundreds of edits have been made by socks and anons to an obscure group of articles since January 2012, all aiming at changing the way that English refers to the Palatine lands of electors and to the titles of the various Counts and Princesses Palatine and prince electors. Made by User:-Ilhador- -- and anons. It is obvious that this is a sock, and we know whose sock because similar, extremely obscure edits were also made recently by User:HammyDoo; like this one and this one and this one. HammyDoo admitted on his talk page, before being blocked for sockpuppetry and vandalism, that he wants his old account as LouisPhilippeCharles un-blocked because half of his edits have been reverted. Since January 2012 -Ilhador-'s agenda has been to substitute the use of Electoral for the adjective Palatine and promote use of Palatine only in the noun-form of Palatinate -- unlike standard English (which prefers, e.g., Elector Palatine). Also, a blocked sock of LouisPhilippeCharles showing the same pre-occupation with the same Palatine family of royals was Moonpig12345, who got reverted for it here.

For -Ilhador-'s examples, see here and here and here.

For anons doing the same thing on many of the same articles around the same time, see 187.15.51.10 here and here.

Another anon is 201.29.146.50, who did this.

Another is 187.14.230.21, who did this and this.

Another is 201.29.148.38, who did this and this.

Clearly, -Ilhador- is LouisPhilippeCharles, vandalizing royalty articles via puppets while banned. This duck is quacking loudly to be blocked and reverted as a sock. Please do so. FactStraight (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC) FactStraight (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
21 October 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


"Riiiiiiiiiiiiight peeps I am going to say it.... I (The person writing this) was the one time infamous LouisPhilippeCharles and have decided to take it upon myself to create an account" ( creation edit on user talk:ImAGayGeek)

I have blocked the account indefinitely. This posting is to keep the information in a central location for ease of access those who need to know.

There is an slight possibility that the creation of this account might be by an agent provocateur in which case it need blocking anyway. PBS (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally linked the comment above to the user page. That comment has since been deleted by another admin, so I have changed the link to an identical edit on the user talk page user talk:ImAGayGeek --PBS (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
06 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK: username, open admission of sockpuppetry. LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked, despite this account's claim to the contrary. SuperMarioMan 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
06 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Admitted by user as he posted on my talk page in response to a UTRS email he received: [11] [12] [13] —Darkwind (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Pro forma report, not bothering to block the IPs as they're changing too rapidly to be useful. —Darkwind (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

26 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Claims, at User:VivaLaDivaVivaVittoria, to be User:LouisPhilippeCharles, "but have battled to be able to return and succeeded". I see no evidence he is allowed to return. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly isn't! Yesterday, one of his old socks made this attempt at a comeback, which is not exactly the kind of contrition we're looking for. Favonian (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

23 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


This IP is LouisPhilippeCharles/LouisPhilippeCharlesNew editing in circumvention of his ban. For example, IP edited Marie Sophie de Courcillon, an article created and extensively edited by LouisPhilippeCharles. IP is clearly LouisPhilippeCharlesNew per unblock request at Commons. Accordingly, this is a request to check for sleepers. Эlcobbola talk 23:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

07 July 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Their userpage states that they are a "human being", a common argument used by LPC. There's also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marie_Jos%C3%A9phine_of_Savoy&diff=prev&oldid=1096927362 this edit], which is similar to other edits done by LPC (should also be noted that the Scots Wikipaedia article was created by LPC). Both in the subject matter (they have exclusively edited articles on nobility) and on titles. For example, see Mary_Graham,_Duchess_of_Montrose which is extremely similar to the sort of articles LPC likes to make CiphriusKane (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

02 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Most of their edits involve European nobility, including moving pages to their preferred title without discussion. They've also made a couple of edits on scowiki using edit summaries near identical to User:Primeolives, a confirmed LPC sock.

This edit for example seems rather similar to the sort of stuff LPC/Tom does, focusing on heritage and marriage, as well as changing the nobility's title shortly before moving the page CiphriusKane (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

25 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

LouisPhilippeCharles was a user primarily interested in the French nobility and specifically in recent years the page titles for the French nobility. Since being banned from English Wikipedia indefinitely the user has made many confirmed sockpuppets, including this year User:Primeolives and User:Insertpinnumber. This new user, who has begun editing recently has the exact same focus of edits on French noble article titles and the same preferences for how they are to be reformatted, the user likes to change noble titles so they include 'xth duke of [title]'

See this edit by Primeolives
and this edit by Swedishrodenmafia

Both accounts began moving pages almost immediately upon creation, and even cover the same noble families in their move drives,
see this edit by Swedishrodenmafia
and this edit by Primeolives sovietblobfish (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having informed user on their userpage of this investigation, so that they can present a counter-argument, user emailed me, and used the phrase " I AM A HUMAN BEING AND I HAVE FEELINGS"
This phrase was discussed in the July 2022 sockpuppet investigation into User:Pielok1990 (an LPC sockpuppet that has been blocked) as a favourite phrase of LPC. User repeats it three times throughout the email, but does not appear to deny that they are in fact LPC. sovietblobfish (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Most definitely LPC. Block, tag and close. Favonian (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21 February 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Every mainspace edit has been about the titles or children of European nobility e.g. Also comparing this userpage to User:Broken beyond repair there's several similarities (hatred of reality TV, love of Eden Hazard, BLP-violating commentary about Kim Kardashian) CiphriusKane (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the abusive email I've just received from the suspect, I am now certain that this is LouisPhilippeCharles CiphriusKane (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

More