Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chris lepidoptera/Archive

03 August 2018
Please see the latest comment below before actually deciding to archive this. I request a formal clarification, preferably by an administrator, before this is actually closed and archived. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I think that this has been summarized and closed nicely. I hope I have not been too annoying -- all that I had missed was exactly such a summary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Formal request for clarification

I understand that a block might not be the solution here. I am requesting formal clarification that Lepidoptera~plwiki and Chris lepidoptera are the same person. I am requesting this because Lepidoptera~plwiki has been sanctioned (mass revert, blacklist entry, and strong warning) for their edits, and is now claiming that he had allegedly never been warned before. It should be formally clarified that the person has been warned on User talk:Chris lepidoptera about exactly this issue since 2010, and that denying the connection between the two accounts is considered to be illegitimate abuse of multiple accounts to evade scrutiny.

I believe that an uninvolved administrator should do this.

Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible consequence

The "Sockpuppet" template provides syntax for exactly this use-case. Proven (WP:DUCK), not blocked:

This template could be added to the user page of Lepidoptera~plwiki to clarify the connection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Evidence and details

Evidence of abuse by both accounts: COIbot list, ELN discussion, ANI discussion, example spam by user 1, similar edit by user 2, recent spam by user 2.

Evidence of "Lepidoptera~plwiki" and "Chris lepidoptera" being the same person:


 * "Lepidoptera" in both usernames.
 * Personal information (name, e-mail address) on User:Lepidoptera~plwiki indicate a connection to "Chris lepidoptera".
 * Both accounts have behaved very similarly: Massive addition of external links to his own website (proof, explicit confirmation), lepidoptera.eu, marked incorrectly as "minor edits".

Reason for not opening an SPI before: I was sure that he wouldn't deny having been previously using the sockmaster account. I interpreted this as an unconventional way of renaming one's account. The old account has not been used since.

Reason for now opening an SPI: Now that Lepidoptera~plwiki is denying his old account (update: again) by claiming they'd have started editing in 2015, I am requesting a formal confirmation that we are dealing with the same editor here. The same editor who has received warnings many years ago and continued to spam under a different username.

It might also be worth noting that the time of the edits is not completely separate; there has been a period from 2015-2016 where both accounts have been used for these edits. This is not a simple rename. It includes a short period of actual multi-account usage. Example diffs: bad hand diff good hand diff.

The following IP address might also have been used:


 * 62.121.64.89 (talk)

Links to lepidoptera.pl have been added by the IP address (example diff) and Chris lepidoptera (example diff) on consecutive days.

The imprint of lepidoptera.pl confirms the connection:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080501162745/http://www.lepidoptera.pl:80/start.php?lang=UK

"All images on this website remain the exclusive copyright of the photographer and may not be reproduced or exploited in any other way without the permission of the copyright owner. Copyright ©2007 by Chris Jonko"

~ ToBeFree (talk), originally 13:57, 3 August 2018 -- rewritten for clarification ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Thank you. I was not really thinking about a block of the currently used account, either. However, I wonder: Doesn't the creation of a new account, stealthily continuing to spam, and claiming to never have received warnings before, match exactly the following description?

(from Sock_puppetry)

It is hopefully a reasonable request to formally clarify that exactly this has happened here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am unsure. Of course, I do not want to waste precious time -- it just doesn't feel completely right to me to close this (hopefully easy!) case without any result. The problem is that the user's spam edits have been dealt with in a way that has partly been justified by the obvious connection between "Lepidoptera~plwiki" and "Chris lepidoptera". The user has been warned about spamming many times for many years, but only very recently on their new account's talk page. They are now defending themselves by saying that they "never received any warnings before". All we can answer is "this appears to be extremely unlikely" or "I personally do not believe that". There is no official statement that clarifies the connection. There has not been a formal SPI. As the connection is very obvious, I hoped that an uninvolved administrator experienced with SPI could take a minute to clarify the situation here. Maybe the best solution would be waiting for an administrator to decide what to do next. I think that this situation might be unusual, but not off-topic for SPI. To me, it appears to belong exactly here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I support ToBeFree's position here. WP:SPI says it's "for requesting that we investigate whether two or more Wikipedia accounts are being abusively operated by the same person." - it's not all about blocks. If an uninvolved SPI analyst (possibly with access to extra info) finds the evidence of sockpuppetry compelling then that's a useful piece of information when dealing with the person (e.g. in this case it would indicate that the 5th Aug statement is untrue). DexDor(talk) 06:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind re-opening the case? Face-smile.svg ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I have now taken the time to draft a possible consequence above. The "Sockpuppet" template provides syntax for exactly this use-case. If this is still not considered to be sufficient, I'd be happy to learn about a specific policy or guideline that justifies keeping up the current closure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I think that this has been summarized and closed nicely. I hope I have not been too annoying -- all that I had missed was exactly such a summary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is the same person, a block here would fail to satisfy WP:BLOCKP, as any potential misuse of multiple accounts appears to have stopped over two years ago. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you'd like them to clarify their position, you're more than welcome to take it up with them directly, but there's not much point to a formal investigation here, since won't lead to anything regardless of findings. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as you've still not shown why a formal investigation is necessary here. All that an investigation here would produce is the opinion of an SPI clerk. Unless there are concrete consequences (i.e. administrative action) to that opinion, it isn't worth giving. Besides, reopening is also not procedurally necessary. Evaluation by another clerk is what's supposed happen next anyways as part of the archiving process, whether it had been requested or not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Behaviorally, the two accounts would either be sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I have counted three other admins at the noticeboards who seem to endorse this view and I would say the same. The first account's last edit on January 11, 2016 in this history is followed less than 24 hours later by the second account. It is implausible that they aren't related. With the links blacklisted and assurance given that he won't be trying to add new ones anymore, I don't think there is much else to do.