This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) at 01:43, 14 August 2012 (Marking case as closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:43, 14 August 2012 by Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) (Marking case as closed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive.
A long-term abuse case exists at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Marquis de la Eirron.
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
06 August 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- I need to Tan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
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)
- Just block per WP:DUCK if it's easier, I don't mind. 2 lines of K303 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
- Why is checkuser being requested? This isn't clear.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC) - Blocked and tagged as obvious sock.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
Clerk endorsed - to clarify.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Categories: