Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheBishopAndHolyPrince/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
The UnicornSherbert account was created on 15 March 2024, 4 days after TheBishopAndHolyPrince was indeffed (and 3 days after their final UTRS appeal was declined):
 * UnicornSherbert has only 660 edits as of today - coincidently the same number as TheBishop. Yet for such small number of edits they have a huge overlap on the Editor Interaction Anylyser (around 65 articles and categories)
 * Their editing interests are identical and idiosyncratic: new UK Acts of Parliament (some of which are obscure); UK local government authorities and offices; and UK government ministers and ministerial offices (and on a completely different topic area High Speed 2). (See also articles they have created
 * The interest overlap is obscure. See Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 as an example. UnicornSherbert has edited (and been one of the few to edit) multiple articles created by TheBishop eg
 * They have a particular pet subject about using the full peerage name of British politicians who have been made lords, and have opened two (poorly formed) RfCs on this. Compare TheBishop's RfC at Talk:Foreign Secretary with UnicornSherbert's current attempt at an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) - see this and this.

There are other similarities in writing style and user name but I would think the above is WP:DUCK enough. DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

UnicornSherbert is certainly a returned user. Their second edit was to create this - see this first version. This and their edits to Lucy Letby raised my suspicions that they may in fact be BarehamOliver (Bareham Oliver socks often create near complete articles in very early edits after account creation) and also theirinteractions at the Angela Rayner article strengthened my suspicions, but article overlap with BarehamOliver known articles kept this inconclusive for me. I was awaiting clearer evidence before taking this to SPI. I concur with DeCausa that there is a clear DUCK case that this is a sock of TheBishopAndHolyPrince. Behaviour is just obviously a returned combative user with implausible levels of experience, and the article overlap makes this obvious. I have noticed with BarehamOliver's many socks that whilst there is overlap between them, they tend to use specific socks for specific articles (at least until they all need to converge for vote stacking purposes). Would it be possible to investigate whether TheBishopAndHolyPrince may in fact also be BarehamOliver? It is not much more than a hunch. Known BarehamOliver socks write true crime articles with just a very few political/legal ones. That is not a clear overlap, but as both of those are already banned, presumably it is less controversial to check for a previously unrecognised connection of interests. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ETA, having looked carefully at TheBishopAndHolyPrince's early edit history, I think similarities to BarehamOliver are harder to sustain. That user's evident inexperience in 2022 would not match BarehamOliver, and the overlap is almost non existent, which is implausible based on that socks prior behaviour. UnicornSherbert's history and style is such a close match for TheBishopAndHolyPrince and so circumstantial for BarehamOliver that I withdraw my view that there is any link to Oliver. But again, the clearest possible DUCK case that UnicornSherbert is TheBishopAndHolyPrince. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed this on my talk page. I have never had a Wikipedia account before this one. I do not know any of the two users I am being accused of purporting to be. The allegations are vexatious and false with no credible evidence other than circumstantial fantasy. I know I cannot stop an investigation and I do not wish to do so, but this has only arisen since I have tried to raise an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), and is seen to be retaliatory or trying to get me to shut up so that the RfC is not considered. I will finally add that the edits raised above do not necessarily support the case. Other users have edited the articles referred to above. A correlation (even if there is one) does not automatically mean that that is causation. I have nothing else to add and I know I have not done anything wrong. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I draw especial attention to the campaign of abuse and harassment perpetrated by DeCausa on my talk page. No further abuse will receive a response. UnicornSherbert (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - is ✅ to  - blocked and tagged. I'm still looking at the IPs, there are some other accounts that warrant looking at.   Girth Summit  (blether)  12:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also confirmed is . There are some other accounts that might be them, but these are some busy IPs and I'm not seeing a behavioural link so I'm going to leave them alone. Come back if anyone else stands out. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same interests as sockmaster: UK local government positions and UK government ministers and ministerial offices, particularly as regards their style of address. There is overlap at Tees Valley Mayor and 2024 Tees Valley mayoral election (Interaction). Sockpuppet was also keen on adding piped text "The Lord X" to wikilinks, especially in infoboxes, and started two RFCs on the topic ( and sockpuppet ). This sock has done this on multiple articles, including some of the same articles as the sockmaster). Cambial — foliar❧ 18:21, 19 May 2024 (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

 * No edits in over a week from the IP, which is probably dynamic. Closing without action. Please re-report should this reoccur. The SandDoctor  Talk 05:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Despite currently having fewer than 60 edits to their name, the degree of overlap with the sockmaster's most recent sock and with the sockmaster is remarkable. They reintroduce portions of text verbatim, with the same citations and formatting, that were earlier introduced by the sockmaster. They make identical infobox edits as a previous sock.They have the same interest in introducing "The Lord X" piped links into article infoboxes.

Looks like a duck to me Pinging as they suggested re-reporting should socking reoccur. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:37, 26 June 2024 (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

 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Just 15 edits so far but yet again the degree of overlap to disparate and obscure pages is a giveaway. Their first edit is to nominate a little-known article for deletion. Another sock of TBAHP !votes in the discussion shortly after. Cambial — foliar❧</b> 17:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Pinging and  given their familiarity with this case. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 17:04, 26 June 2024 (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

 * While they are editing on a proxy, they are pretty solidly ✅ along with to be the same editor as  and . - Aoidh (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)