Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lima/Archive

Evidence submitted by JPBHarris
user:Soidi is certainly a sockpuppet of user:Lima. user:Lima's own user page admits this. user:Harmakheru has recently starte the to engage in the same dispute as user:Lima: Catholic Church. He has the same writing style and has already been warned about his aggressive tone towards other editors. JPBHarris (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by JPBHarris (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * I removed User:Soidi as a possible sockpuppet because it is legitimate use of an alternate account. I have not looked at the rest of the case yet. NW ( Talk ) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Harmakheru is ❌ but Lima and Soidi is worth looking into. Brandon (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * edits as and  in the same topic area. Somebody might want to review that to see if it is abusive or not. Otherwise nothing else to report. Brandon (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have softblocked and left  this notice. NW ( Talk ) 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by JPBHarris
user:Lima has been subject to a sockpuppet investigation once before which revealed that user:Lima was using a sockpuppet account user:Platia. This account was block indefinitely and user:Lima was given a warning (by user:NuclearWarfare on his talk page “Because of your editing with the account Platia and Soidi in the same topic area, and because you denied that the Platia account was not yours here (which was proved false at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lima), I have blocked the Platia account indefinitely. Please regard this as a firm warning to abide by the sockpuppetry policy.”

Account user:Soidi was an account created by user:Lima on July 21 2007. This was a sockpuppet account until November 9 2008 when a reference was added to it from the master account user:lima user page.

Since the last sockpuppet investigation user:Lima has created another Sockpuppet account user:Decahill. He has ignored NW’s warning and edited articles with this sockpuppet account (and both his other accounts: user:Lima, user:Soidi) in the same topic area:

Decahill & Lima Irish_Catholic_Bishops%27_Conference

Decahill, Soidi & Platia (blocked account) Seán_Brady - updated JPBHarris (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Decahill & Soidi Giuseppe_Leanza

Decahill & Lima Roberto_González_Nieves

Decahill & Soidi Luis_Aponte_Mart%C3%ADnez

Decahill, Soidi & Lima Óscar_Andrés_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Maradiaga

Even though the last investigation concluded that the use of account user:Soidi was now acceptable (provided it was not used in the same topic area) I feel this now needs to be reviewed given the above evidence.

One article Óscar_Andrés_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Maradiaga has been edited by all three accounts. user:Lima cannot claim ignorance, he has been warned on previous occasions about the use of sockpuppet accounts by user:NuclearWarfare and several times by user ADM both of whom have made the user aware of Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets. user:ADM thinks that user:LCahill is also a sockpuppet.

In addition user:Lima has misled other users about his accounts: He refused a request by user:Leadwind to participate in the Catholic Church article claiming he no longer participates in the article; but he does participate by using his user:Soidi account - it would not be possible to edit the article with both accounts due to sockpuppetry policy. However, user:Lima then continues to canvas user:Leadwind [] to add comments to an RFC, one in which user:Soidi had already participated, but could not leave a comment on user:Leadwind’s talk page because of possible Canvassing accusations. Hence, account user:Lima was used to do this instead.

JPBHarris (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I can confirm that what user:JPBHarris says is accurate, since I was the first one to openly speak about the existence of multiple accounts for this one user. ADM (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the evidence of deception that JPBHarris claims. As far as a quick glance shows, User:Soidi did not edit Catholic Church after user:Lima said he would probably not do so in future.  I may have missed something, could we have diffs please?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhomb (talk • contribs) 07:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct that user:Soidi has not yet edit Catholic Church after User:Lima said he would probably would not. The fact is user:Lima cannot edit because it would be seen as a violation of sockpuppet policy. user:Soidi has edited a related RFC and directed user:Leadwind to comment on it using the user:Lima account . JPBHarris (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and which "Community ban or sanction" (code E) is Lima under? Rhomb (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was a bit unsure of the category but sanction evasion seemed the most appropriate. Basically user:NuclearWarfare warn user:Lima about the inappropriate use of sockpuppet accounts (and his denial when challenged) on his user page . His sockpuupet account user:Platia was blocked. user:Lima has ignored this warning and continued creating more sockpuppet accounts. If E is not appropriate I can change it to "(code F): repeat violation of sockpuppetry policy after receiving a warning & block over account use." if you think it more appropriate. JPBHarris (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that, who filed this case, did so on his third ever edit. Something is not right here. Rhomb (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. I did not see that. Good eye. –MuZemike 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by JPBHarris (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

–MuZemike 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

to check on the filer. Again, a brand new user whose first edits are to create an SPI case is likely WP:PLAXICO. –MuZemike 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * is related to . I have no idea about any masters, though. It's Tiscali, so...  J.delanoy gabs adds  19:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ =

is a bit more complicated. The other three accounts all use the same UAs as the others at various times, and there is a lot of overlap with IP addresses, way more than there should be given how dynamic their connection is. LChahill uses only one UA, and while his/her IP ranges are close to the others, they are never in the same /16 as the others. On the other hand, they have edited a lot of the same pages, so I am not absolutely positive. Still, technical evidence appears to indicate that s/he is ❌, or at best, very. J.delanoy gabs adds 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I probably should not have endorsed this CheckUser request as I forgot to look at the socks' userpages, in which Soidi and Decahill were declared alternate accounts of Lima. I'll look into it a bit more if I get time, but right now I am reluctant on blocking at the moment. –MuZemike 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Left final warning for master and indefed Decahill. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:SatDen indefinitely blocked, and User:JPBHarris warned not to use socks again. –MuZemike 22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by ADM
I have a good feeling user:Esoglou is also a clone of user:Lima. In that case, it should probably be banned as well. ADM (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am using no other name/account but this. The Lima account has evidently been abandoned.  Did ADM (Administrator?) act within his powers and rightly in reverting my edits here and here and here and here with the summary "rv banned user Lima"?  And for that matter, has Lima indeed been banned?  It doesn't seem to be so.   Esoglou (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You opened this account on the very day (December 23 2009) that you (temporarily?) suspended user:Lima, which has been banned under other names, such as user:Soidi and user:Platia. It is clear at this point that it is a sockpuppet, and that only the main account Lima should ever be used. ADM (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ADM please can you clarify: did you want this case to be opened as a case for checkuser, or as a case for further investigation? Or not at all? Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to do both ? This page has the word investigations in its title, and generally this involves making use of the checkuser tool. ADM (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the archive of this page and on user:Lima's talkpage, there was a strict warning from an administrator that no more sockpuppets were going to be tolerated. I think it would be wrong if any of the current sysops would ignore all of these past warnings. ADM (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of evidence, or you must be wiki-fatigued. See for instance ADM (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I repeat: "Esoglou" is the only log-in name I am using, and the Lima account has been closed.
 * If ADM did not act correctly in reverting my edits, I ask that his action be undone officially. I don't want to do it myself.  Esoglou (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recommendation, if it was even that, accepted (of course). May I please raise again the question of the yet undone revert on grounds of being banned? Esoglou (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I failed to understand properly (my fault) Tim Song's suggestion.  I'll fix it immediately.  Esoglou (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * May I respectfully say that I think this is unfair. I was given no opportunity to defend myself before judgement was passed on me on those two occasions. I believed that I was not in violation of Wikipedia rules. When I opened the Decahill account, I stated explicitly on the discussion page that I thought my opening that account to keep watch on a particular area was legitimate and that I was prepared to close it immediately if informed authoritatively that it was not legitimate. I am unaware of being told that there was any rule against abandoning definitively an original log-in name or "master account" and replacing it absolutely with another as one's sole log-in name.  Unless my memory is false, I think someone was told that he could do so on condition that he made no connection with his previous name.  I suppose my memory must indeed be false, because here I have been told that I must make an explicit connection with my previoius name.  This I did as soon as was told.  But now someone wants me condemned not merely for what I have done, but even for my supposed desires and intentions, of which I was myself unaware.  And the person making this accusation is using the same sock puppet JPBHarris with which twice before he has had me condemned unheard!  Esoglou (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the kind of playing the 'ignorance card' that I was referring to. user:ADM first pointed you to the fact that you must link to your master account which you subsequently removed  and was readded by user:NuclearWarfare . In the warning of your sockpuppet user:Platia user:NuclearWarfare writes “Please regard this as a firm warning to abide by the sockpuppetry policy”. You have a link to the policy. With sockpuppet account user:Decahill it was user:ADM that gave the link to the master account . Lima, you know very well that you must link to your alternate accounts.
 * When you created the user:Esoglou account you added the a cryptic comment (as on your user:Decahill page ) “I have started a new page in view of misunderstandings connected with my previous login name…”. Why… because just incase there was another SPI you could claim that there was an implicit ‘link’ to another account – even though in the very same minute you cunningly blanked the page  so no user could see it (unless they viewed your talk history) but you could use still use it as as a ‘get out’ clause.
 * Lima, you know the rules. From your edits it is clear you are a knowledgeable person; ignorance doesn’t work. Please don’t treat us like fools. Noone is trying to get you banned (infact, I suggested a warning, and quit the Ad_hominem attacks). This is now your fifth (known) account. If you had stuck with one account we would not be here. If anyone is trying to get you banned it is yourself. Now is the time for you to come clean and reveal all your accounts. JPBHarris (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said, I made up my mind over a month ago to start afresh and use no other account but this new one, not even a legitimate alternate account, which I have found by experience leads to confusion and mixing of areas. (Needless to say, I would be perfectly happy to let all my previous accounts, which have now, all of them, been identified, blocked.)  If in spite of the time I have already kept faithfully to my new policy the community considers me insincere and wishes to punish me for my past faults, I must accept its decision.  Esoglou (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the conclusions. You can depend on me to keep to my resolution.  I am surprised that it has not been seen as obvious that LCahill is quite a different user.  To judge by the IPs he uses to develop articles immediately after initiating them (generally, one edit only) with that user name, he is now back in London, where he was until he spent some recent months in Ireland. Esoglou (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect that this section will be closed soon. And I hope never to have occasion to return. Before I leave, I think it might be well just to mention that I think LCahill is likely to be the editor behind the JPBHarris name.  But, though I mention this as a matter of speculative interest, I do not ask, nor do I intend to ask, that a check be run on the two names.  After all, what rule has he broken?  Esoglou (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * I take the above statement by user:Esoglou as an admission of guilt. ADM (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could it be made clear what ADM thinks Esoglou is "guilty" of? He refers to other users being "banned", and at least two of them are not even blocked.  Similarly please could Esoglou make a definitive statement as to which of the acounts named s/he has and has not used, and which one s/he proposes to use in the future?  Rhomb (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just playing the role of the accuser, somebody whose goal is to initiate investigations. Anyways, if you check the archives of this page, there are at least two sockpuppets of Lima who have been blocked, and I'm thinking that this could be a third one. ADM (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have already stated, the only account that I am using is User:Esoglou. I made a fresh start over a month ago, and have no intention of ever using another log-in name, even as a legitimate alternate account. And would someone please undo the reverts done on the grounds that I have been banned from Wikipedia?  I'll check developments tomorrow.  Esoglou (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ADM, please be a bit more explicit. I checked one of your diffs below and it shows Esoglou editing an article 11 months afer Lima. Why would this be wrong?  Rhomb (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfounded allegations removed. Tim Song (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC) ADM (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ADM has been good enough to undo three of the four reverts that he made on the grounds of my supposed banning from Wikipedia. To that extent I commend him.  I feel no resentment for the desire and hope that he expressed in the final word of his edit summary: "lima not banned yet".  I would be grateful if his fourth revert could kindly be undone too.  Esoglou (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * May I add a word of commendation for ADM's earlier action in letting me know that he had made this complaint. I was then able to find in the list of his contributions the indication of where he had lodged the complaint, and so to reply to it. In the two previous complaints against me (made in both cases by someone using the same sock puppet) knowledge of the complaint reached me in the form of a decision against me communicated to me when the case was already closed. It was because of this that I decided to change to a new log-in name. Esoglou (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ADM has now undone his fourth revert on grounds of banning. I thank him for that too. Esoglou (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ADM's comment of 18:31 is unacceptable. The last sentence is untrue as a glance at my contributions will show -- most of my edits are not to SPI and most of my edits to SPI are not defending sockpuppets.  ADM needs to refactor this personal attack.  Rhomb (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Having reviewed Rhomb's contribs, I see no merit in the allegations whatsoever. There is virtually zero overlap between Rhomb and Lima's edits. Tim Song (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is rather mistaken for both of you to collude in the censorship of my comments. Comments are just comments, they are genuinely meaningless until proven to be true. Besides, there is absolutely nothing wrong with me expressing annoyance at user:Rhomb's overuse of SPI pages and his spirited defense of all of user:Lima's sockpuppets. ADM (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the third SPI investigation into user:Lima. The two previous occasions revealed sockpuppet abuses with accounts user:Platia and user: Decahill. user:Lima is the master account and the user was reminded several times that he must link any sockpuppet accounts to the master account. He cannot claim ignorance. He has been told of Wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry. He has been warned twice on his use page


 * The problem is that user:Lima wants an account that cannot be linked back to the master account because of previous behavior. It takes yet another SPI to force him to link back to the master account. This user is well aware of sockpuppet policy and I suspect this will only result in him creating another sockpuppet account along the lines of user:Soidi.


 * He should at least be warned on his user:Esoglou talk page about his failure to link and of WP:SCRUTINY violation. But how many warnings does this user need? JPBHarris (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that, who filed the two previous SPI reports against Lima, is a WP:SPA whose only edits are to pursue this case (looking disturbingly like harassent). Clearly not a new user, as I suggested before, filing at SPI on the third edit. Could there possibly be a connection with ? Rhomb (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, it's really just a coincidence if we are both pursuing this case at the same time. I have no idea who user:JPBHarris is, and frankly, I don't care. ADM (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First, as I do not have as much time as others users I have made very few edits; whilst most are related this does not constitute WP:SPA. I suggest you read the policy, which incidentally warns against making statements regarding motives. I also suggest you WP:AGF. Second, I take your accusation of ‘harassent’ [sic] of another user as a personal attack and will remind you of WP:NPA just as you warned ADM. Third, the last SPI did in fact run a checkuser on my account and revealed that there was no master account. I have no objection to any further checks either. Fourth, if we are requesting user checks perhaps I could suggest one on your master account might be order – just to confirm you do not have any connection to any of the user:Lima accounts. Finally, I note that you only gave an Ad_hominem fallacy so I assume you accept that the two previous SPIs which found user:Lima to be using sockpuppets, both the sockpuppet accounts were banned indefinitely and Lima was twice warned on his user page by SPI clerks to stop abusing and abide by WP:SOCK. JPBHarris (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been "revealed" that there is no master account behind the account of JPBHarris, who is thus revealed to be endowed with an intelligence extremely quick in grasping the workings of Wikipedia. His first two edits ever were on his own User and Talk pages, with the merely casual and unintended result that, when he made his first edit outside his personal area, the links to these were not in red and gave the impression that he was an established editor instead of one who had made his first ever Wikipedia edit a mere 15 minutes before. Since then, he has made two edits in which he removed from his Talk page queries about whether his account is an alternate account or the user of an alternate account, denying, in full accord with what has been revealed, that it is. He has also made two edits of correspondence with ADM about the great problem of Lima, a problem that is also the object of all his other 15 edits. So imporant is this problem that it is the only topic in Wikipedia that he has had time to attend to, since he does not have as much time as other users.  Esoglou (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

user:LCahill
It may be worth checking user:LCahill as a sockpuppet of user:Esoglou since the last SPI revealed that the IP range was very close to the others accounts. JPBHarris (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be in favor of such a move. ADM (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Defteri
I think this account is an illicit sockpuppet of user:Platia, which was banned as a clone of user:Lima and user:Soidi. Since there is a maxuimum luimit of altenrate accounts, this account should probably be banned. ADM (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Yes, they seem to be the same user. Where is the abusive sockpuppetry? Unless evidence of a violation of WP:SOCK is provided, I'm inclined to close this as. Tim Song (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that the user "edit in the same topic areas with multiple accounts" simultaneously. Therefore, provided that the user link his two accounts, I believe there should be on SPI's part. I'll leave this open for another admin or clerk to double-check. Tim Song (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the accounts obviously belong to the same person. But have they been used abusively? On another note, please try and remain civil towards the clerks here, they do a tedious job, and it's nice to treat them with respect. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, there is nothing improper about starting over with a new account; as long as they are linked, there is no WP:SOCK violation. Esoglou/Lima, I suggest that you redirect User:Lima to your current userpage. After the Esoglou account started editing, the Lima account ceased to edit. The only thing arguably improper here would be a violation of WP:SCRUTINY, but a visible link between the two accounts would cure that. Tim Song (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, as long as there is a link, it's okay. What you did initially was totally fine. Which revert was not undone? Tim Song (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Enough of this. Next time I see an edit to this page by any of the parties, it will be reverted unless it presents new evidence. Tim Song (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, better yet, I'm marking as closed. If I see anymore mud-slinging like this, I'm blocking everyone. –MuZemike 19:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll um-mark as closed, but I don't want to see anymore bickering from either side in this SPI. Does everyone here understand? If you folks cannot be civil here, then we cannot help you. –MuZemike 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-endorsing for CU attention to check on Esoglou and Defteri as well as checking again on Lcahill because of the new accounts that popped up. (I'm still unsure what else will come up if Tiscali is still being used.) I want to be more certain on the socking here. –MuZemike 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Defteri is clearly Esoglou/Lima. Lcahill is very possible, but there is just no clear IP match that would allow me to make a conclusive link. Dominic·t 07:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the admission above, I have placed an indefinite softblock on the User:Lima account. As of now, I'm not seeing any violations of WP:SCRUTINY so far, and I'm allowing the person to continue to edit under the User:Esoglou name. I have also indefinitely blocked User:Defteri as a confirmed sock. However, the editing patterns are different on LCahill and, combined with the given CU results, I cannot definitively conclude sock puppetry. If another admin wants to look at it, s/he can go ahead. However, without any other action having been taken on this case in over a week, I don't forsee that happening. Esoglou is strongly reminded to remain with one and only one account from now on; any further deception via multiple accounts will lead to harder blocks in the future. –MuZemike 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

no further action needed on SPI's part, marking as closed, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)