Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esoglou/Archive

07 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Esoglou has been unhappy about inclusion of some changes to the article on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. When I and another editor declined to continue debating with him on the talk page as we found his edits disruptive and his arguments weak, a number of edits suddenly appeared from two separate IP accounts (in the same location) that made changes exactly the way Esoglou had wanted. These IP users had not been involved in discussion up until now, and the changes made by these un-named IP accounts were made on vague grounds like "removing propaganda" and "original research". They didn't go into too much detail as I would easily have recognised Esoglou's style on the talk page. Esoglou tried to show he was not the same as the un-named user by going to my talk page and accusing me of violating the 3RR rule (I think he was trying to corner me into doing that by using a number of different accounts). But then the IP user begins to make mistakes and forgetting which puppet they are - pointing to material they claim they had originally inserted when in fact the originator of that material was Esoglou (because I believe them to be one and the same). IP user 174.255.192.167 has also made edits to the article on Salvatore Cordileone - another article where Esoglou and I had disagreed about material. No other users were involved in discussions on those points. The changes made were exactly the ones that Esoglou had been arguing for. Esoglou has also been hounding me recently by turning up at unrelated article to change edits I have made eg LGBT rights in Croatia and Jephtha. It was no coincidence. It requires a bit of a patient read to look at the edits and the talk pages but I think there is sufficient ground there to show something is not right. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Not only do I not know Esglou, that person has actually undone several of my edits   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.231.212 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How funny that you managed to find your way to this notice board and to take time to defend an editor that you do not know. Administrator please take note. Esoglou has not undone any of your edits at any stage. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You really have not been reading any of this, have you? On Aug 2 and Aug 4 Esoglou undid much of the text that I wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.231.212 (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence that Esoglou undid material posted by IP user 174.236.231.212 on the dates you claim.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please apply CheckUser. I, the accused editor, request it.  That will put a quick end to the accusation.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This was a tough call. There are actually many more IPs in the same ranges as are listed above who are editing the article. Thus, when one IP says, this happened, he is talking about himself as an individual, not as an address. I semi-protected the page for one month and blocked Esoglou for one week. Although there is justification for the block, I nonetheless hesitated. Despite some what I considered to be small discrepancies, both the edits and the summaries appeared to be written by the same person. Also, I didn't like the fact that Esoglou did not deny editng with IPs in the talk page discussion. Instead, he insisted on dealing with the IPs' edits, just as his edits, on the merits. (@IP, checkuser is rarely done to tie named accounts to IPs and won't be done in this case.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Esoglou was subsequently unblocked as it was demonstrated that he had not been socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

31 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

New user Jujutsuan, who first registered as Crusadestudent but then changed the user name, demonstrates the same interests and behavior as Esoglou who was banned in March 2015. Both Esoglou and Jujutsuan have edited Latin Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia; and both have edited a long list of the same obscure articles on English Wikipedia. Esoglou also started with a different user name back in 2009, probably even 2005. The editing history of Esoglou and Jujutsuan is identical in the very fast pace of contributions, and in the focus on page moves and small style changes. Like Esoglou who was frequently in conflict with other editors, Jujutsuan quickly ran afoul of other editors, receiving a level 4 warning message after just four days. Note that Theodoxa is already blocked and tagged as a sock of Esoglou, without going through a formal SPI. (Theodoxa and Esoglou shared an interest in obscure articles, just like Jujutsuan and Esoglou.) Checkuser should be able to link Theodoxa with Jujutsuan/Crusadestudent. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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


 * Greetings, below is my contribution to this investigation (first time ever).


 * Sometime after 28 April 2016, Crusadestudent joined WikiProject Catholicism/Members with the following comment


 * American Catholic. Interested in helping, and getting kinda impatient with the instances of anti-Catholic POV on here. Pretty good knowledge of theology and better-than-man-on-the-street knowledge of Church history''.


 * User Crusadestudent was moved to user Jujutsuan in "View history" as of 06:17, 11 May 2016.


 * Thank you for your efforts. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have worked with Esoglou for several years at the Catholic Church page and Crusadestudent/Jututsuan more recently, and have observed no resemblance in their editing behavior beyond technical proficiency and general interest in Catholicism. --Zfish118⋉talk 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Esoglou and Theodoxa are . The data on the master is limited.
 * Jujutsuan is ❌.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Blocked the unblocked confirmed accounts without tags A clerk should create another case with FindingEllipsoids, the oldest of the four accounts, as the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked confirmed accounts without tags A clerk should create another case with FindingEllipsoids, the oldest of the four accounts, as the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked confirmed accounts without tags A clerk should create another case with FindingEllipsoids, the oldest of the four accounts, as the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Very similar writing and edit summary styles, both interested in some very niche Christianity topics, massive overlap in articles edited. If I've got my math right a few of their suspected socks overlapped with each other, so requesting CU for sleepers. There are some details of the case I'm not mentioning publicly but I am very confident that these two accounts are related, SPI folks can contact me privately for more information if needed. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2020 (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

 * - self-endorsing (sitebanned user, suspicion that there may be sleepers). All known socks are years stale, so this is a sleeper-only check. Bealtainemí . GeneralNotability (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No sleepers are present that I could find.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * All right, thanks Oshwah. Sock is blocked and tagged, closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Overlapping interest in Ad orientem (the prayer practice, not the admin), especially in the difference between "Ecclesiastical Latin" and "regular Latin." Compare also this edit by past sock Bealtainemí with this edit by Xumbrales - not identical, but several of the changes are similar between the two, such as how the opening is worded and how Serratelli is cited. I'm not confident enough for a block here, but I believe this evidence is sufficient to justify a technical investigation. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also (mostly a note for future cases): ad orientem is a favorite topic of Esoglou - I count five or so of their accounts in the page history. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2021 (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

 * - self-endorsing per above, and if you want extra justification Esoglou is currently sitebanned by ArbCom. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Extremely to Bealtainemí. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on likely result and comparing behavior of Xumbrales with Bealtainemí I see enough for a block. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)