Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.154.178,231

User:86.154.178.231

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

FactStraight (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

diff by 86.154.178.231
 * Evidence

86.158.101.203

dif by 86.154.178.231

diff by 216.237.38.194

diff by 86.154.178.231

diff by 86.164.90.95

dif by 86.164.90.95

dif by BoBo

diff by Tbharding

diff by Tbharding

diff by 86.158.101.203

diff by 86.158.101.203

diff by 86.147.17.117

diff by 86.147.17.117

diff by 98.192.44.138

diff by 98.192.44.138

diff by tbh

User persistently creates excessively lengthy articles by inserting unsourced (or improperly sourced), redundant, speculative, and or trivial info into dozens of articles related to the House of Bourbon (and to its cadet branch, the House of Orléans), in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s. For instance, inserting that a person was a Prince du Sang or a Fils de France in the opening paragraph, although this is invariably a redundant and trivial factoid; uses French terms even when there are exact English equivalents; includes unsubstantiated statements about the subject's thoughts, feelings, motivations and relationships -- reads like a novel; also inserts large boxes of: genealogical tables, titles of nobility, photos with lengthy captions, line of hereditary succession, siblings, children, etc, resulting in the same info being given 3 or 4 times in one article which could have been comprehensive at 2 paragraphs, but is stretched out to a dozen or more, the trivial being given greater prominence than the substantive. Factoids are often erroneous, but citations are omitted or incomplete, thus can't be checked for accuracy. When edited or reverted, the same info is re-inserted piecemeal by the same or another sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Requests on talk pages to reduce or discuss, to avoid 3RR and sockpuppet are ignored. Despite truce on May 22nd, latest sockpuppet created when blocked on May 23rd.
 * Comments

Please stop the user from avoiding blocks, Talk page discussions, & from artificially inflating the # of editors who want trivia & obscure minutiae in articles on French royalty. FactStraight (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved your last comment from "conclusion" because that's for administrative use. I'm not sure yet because I've only spent 3-4 minutes looking at this, and I will need more time.  What I can say is this: if Tbharding and Bobo are sockpuppets, they've been doing it for a long, long time. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, quickly, semi-protection of articles on a sockpuppeteer's hit list is helpful in this kind of situation. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am NOT a socketpuppeteer. I find it offensive that FactStraight is accusing me simply because I edit the same pages as User:86.154.178.231 et al. Frania W. does too, and I see she isn't being accused.

Frequently, I go to the pages on French royalty. Frequently, User:86.154.178.231 et al has already been there. In general, I have tried to clean up his incoherent English. I do not think that he is a native English speaker because his additions are often mispelled and do not have proper English grammar and syntax. For example, he almost always uses the word "ancestors" when he actually means "descendants". I have tried to correct his prose to make it flow better. At times, I have deleted redundancies and inaccurate information when I was absolutely sure that it was wrong. I have also reorganized the format of some of his additions to make them more readable. In general, though, I do not comment when I am making strictly stylistic changes.

It should also be noticed that I have used the talk pages when I thought it necessary. User:86.154.178.231 et al doesn't seem to. I have no problem explaining what I have done or not done. BoBo (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it "offensive" that BoBo should find it "offensive" that I am not being named in present complaint: All my edits are "repair work" of inexactitudes I find on the Bourbon pages & other articles.  There is a difference between correcting mistakes and burdening an historical article with unnecessary words & superlatives that are only worthy of a "novelette" (to quote FS).  Contrary to BoBo & the various IPs that cut, add & slash without a word, I always give explanation & sources for what I change or add & also use the talk page in order to get someone to respond. In other instances, I leave a note on one of the participants' talk page, i.e. on Bobo him/herself on the title of Prince du Sang which he/she was not using correctly.  Although he/she never had the courtesy to acknowledge my msg, he/she did use the information to bring the necessary changes.  One by one, I am going thru all the Bourbon articles, the last on my list promising to be quite a challenge!  In Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon's article, the lines on Mme de Genlis were a hodgepodge of gossip as she & the duc de Chartres (= future d'Orléans) had been romantically involved for only a few months, not even one year: in the article, they were made to look as if they were lovers for life with the duc continuously "parading" his mistresses in front of his wife. In conclusion, I find BoBo's comment on me totally disingenuous - and when he/she contributes with a bit more information on whether the duc du Machin-Truc or the comtesse de La Truchaudière were prince/princesse du sang or not, then maybe he/she can attack me on more solid "historical" ground.  Frania W. (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * An easy way to check my manner of editing is to go to my "user contributions" page where one can see at most contributions the reasons of changes or additions; then read the content of the changes I have brought, with sources added in footnotes or references, such as books with name of author, title, publisher, place of publication, date, page. Then go to BoBo's "user contributions" and try to figure out without checking the "current revision" itself what the revision was - major or minor. You can also check my contributions of fr:wiki where I work in the same manner, and discussing with some of the main contributors in order to do the work "together" instead of "against": on both English & French wikipedia, there are contributors who are a real pleasure to work with. The current charivari on the Bourbon articles is making us waste time, keeping us away from other articles.


 * Giving the title "your stupidity" to the note left on someone's talk page is way off limits. Name-calling & language of some of the sockpuppeteers should be reason enough to block them; unfortunately there is no way to keep them from popping back up under another anonymous number.  Frania W. (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Frania W., you are being too sensitive and reading too much into my earlier comment concerning you. I previously mentioned your name only as an example of someone else who had also edited User:86.154.178.231 et al's work. I also expressly said that I was not checking the accuracy of every one of User:86.154.178.231 et al's "facts". I only eliminated information I knew for sure was wrong. Most of the time, I was just trying to make his additions more readable for the average English-speaker. In no way was I trying to say that all of User:86.154.178.231 et al's work was accurate or that your work was inaccurate or unsourced. BoBo (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * BoBo, FactStraight was accusing you of sockpuppetry, not of editing the same pages as User:86.154.178.231 et al., so I still do not see why my name had to be brought up. There has been no incidence of sockpuppetry or cloning to replicate my work or push my views.  I need no other name than my own to bring changes to an article & can very well speak for myself.  If I misread you, then we either do not use the same English or one of us needs new glasses/spectacles.  And let's leave it at that, hoping for better understanding in the future.  Frania W. (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a new question. Originally, FactStraight issued me a public apology on my talk page and on this page. My name was then marked off the "suspects" list. I notice that now, however, his apology has been deleted and the line through my name in this post removed. Am I to assume that I am now a suspect again? If so, why? I think some explanation is merited. BoBo (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon review of the editing history of this page, it appears that Frania W. removed the apology and deleted the line removing my name from the list of "suspects". Can she do this unilaterally - especially without notifying me on my own talk page? I think unfortunately that Frania is over-reacting to my previous mention of her name. If she fully reviews my edits AFTER User:86.154.178.231 et al.'s work, she can clearly find that in the majority of cases, I merely edited the phraseology of the additions to make them more readable. I fully admit that I made a mistake initially between Fils de France and Prince du Sang, and when she notified me of it, I corrected it in various articles. That does not mean that I was the one who added all the redundant, unsourced information on titles, residences, châteaux, etc. in the French royal articles. In fact, if one looks at my comments on those articles involving the descendants of Madame de Montespan, I remarked on the needless redundancies of the additions. User:86.154.178.231 et al. appears to be obsessed with justifying/glorifying the position and succession rights of the present House of Orléans. BoBo (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, at the risk of fanning some unwanted flames from Frania W., I find her comment about "hoping for better understanding in the future" somewhat insincere as she failed to explicitly state in the comment that she was unilaterally putting me back on the "suspects" list and removing FactStraight's apology. Such an overwrought response does not bode well for real communication. BoBo (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear BoBo: RE your above comment:  There must be a misunderstanding.  My only contributions to this page were the three comments I left:
 * 1 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC), a follow-up to previous,
 * 2 01:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC), an answer to you.


 * I believe that you should check the *history* of this page to see when your name was deleted from the list, then put back on, and you will see that I had nothing to do with it.


 * More particularly, please read carefully the comment left by Shalom) on 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC), it may have the answer to the problem.


 * I could not agree more with the elegant manner FactStraight apologised to you & I reiterate to you my wish *for better understanding in the future*. Frania W. (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yechiel: I have gone thru all the comments of the above dispute & noticed that after my (first) comment on 9 June following yours of 7 June, FactStraight's apology was deleted & BoBo's name was back on the list. I have no idea how this happened and was surprised when after reading the whole thing I saw BoBo's name back. At the time, I believed it had been done by an Administrator. I certainly do not remember erasing anyone's comment but, if I did, it was accidental. Please remove BoBo's name from list of suspected sock puppets. Frania W. (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC) (same msg left on Yechiel's talk page)

The 216 IP traces to California. The 86 IPs to the UK. I don't think Bobo is a sock. As for the others, I find this inconclusive at this time. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions