Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aerecinski/Archive

30 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Aerecinski re-inserts un-encyclopedic writing and assertions lacking requested in-line citations by other editors. His account and the 3 others cited above have all been created since December 15, 2011, have only edited this one article, and all for the purpose of restoring or expanding the same kind of content to which other editors have objected on the talk page: POV, use of unencyclopedic adjectives to describe individuals or actions, and material sufficiently salacious to require substantial documentation with inline reliable sources -- which he refuses to provide (compare this one by Aerecinski] to this one by 109.243.48.244 to this one by 164.126.13.240. Most of these edits are inappropriately given without edit summaries, but compare this one with this one. Today 30 December 2011, is now editing 2 related articles with same info. Pleae reverse the edits of the anonymous IP socks. FactStraight (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Before doing this I had twice undone the complaining party reverse forgetting to log in which is my 2 different IPs appeared instead of my wiki login. The text is not salacious nor pornographic in any way. What's salacious about illegitimate pregnancies of a lady who died almost 300 years ago ? Is wiki reserved to Victorian minded vigilante contributors ? The real problem to me is that the complaining party wants hagiography instead of history and clearly does not know the French XVIIIthe century sources : he even deleted an edit of mine taken straight from Saint-Simon, the leading French memorialist for Louis XIV reign and the Regency only because Saint-Simon mentioned that the autopsy of the Duchess found her pregnant... If he were to read a bit more of the French historiography on the Duchess of Berry he'd find out that her private life was a permanent scandal. History is not hagiography and Marie Louise Elisabeth d'Orleans' biography just did not fit the contemporary standard format for a blue-blooded royal princess... Yours sincerely. aerecinski
 * I've protected Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans for awhile. Is it possible that this named account is LouisPhilippeCharles? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As the complaining party knows vey well ( I wrote him about it) I have nothing to do with LouisPhilippeCharles or ny of his other enemies on wiki. The complaining party kept totally reverting my edit claiming it was not referenced and this although the sources were named in the text and could all be found easily on google books. I did not think then that academic-styled references were necessary for such a short contribution. I thus rewrote my text over the weekend this time with footnotes giving the precise references including page numbers, etc.
 * The IPs have gone quiet, so I'm closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)