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)
See Defending yourself against claims.
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
user:Lima has been subject to a sockpuppet investigation once before [1] 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.” [2]
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 [3].
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'_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_Martínez
Decahill, Soidi & Lima Óscar_Andrés_Rodríguez_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_Rodríguez_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 [4].
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 [ [5]] to add comments to an RFC [6], one in which user:Soidi had already participated, but could not leave a comment on user:Leadwind’s talk page because of possible Wikipedia:Canvassing accusations. Hence, account user:Lima was used to do this instead.
JPBHarris ( talk) 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
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 am concerned that JPBHarris ( talk · contribs), who filed this case, did so on his third ever edit. Something is not right here. Rhomb ( talk) 22:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed –
MuZemike
20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted 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)
Confirmed
Lima (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) =
LCahill (
talk ·
contribs) 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
Unrelated, or at best, very
Unlikely.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds
19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: 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)
Administrator note
User:SatDen indefinitely blocked, and
User:JPBHarris warned not to use socks again. –
MuZemike
22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
See Defending yourself against claims.
( ←) 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 note that JPBHarris ( talk · contribs), 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 ADM ( talk · contribs)? Rhomb ( talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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 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 note: 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
No action.
Tim Song (
talk)
22:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: 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)
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)
Administrator note 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)
Clerk note: no further action needed on SPI's part, marking as closed,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
See Defending yourself against claims.
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
user:Lima has been subject to a sockpuppet investigation once before [1] 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.” [2]
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 [3].
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'_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_Martínez
Decahill, Soidi & Lima Óscar_Andrés_Rodríguez_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_Rodríguez_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 [4].
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 [ [5]] to add comments to an RFC [6], one in which user:Soidi had already participated, but could not leave a comment on user:Leadwind’s talk page because of possible Wikipedia:Canvassing accusations. Hence, account user:Lima was used to do this instead.
JPBHarris ( talk) 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
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 am concerned that JPBHarris ( talk · contribs), who filed this case, did so on his third ever edit. Something is not right here. Rhomb ( talk) 22:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed –
MuZemike
20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted 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)
Confirmed
Lima (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) =
LCahill (
talk ·
contribs) 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
Unrelated, or at best, very
Unlikely.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds
19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: 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)
Administrator note
User:SatDen indefinitely blocked, and
User:JPBHarris warned not to use socks again. –
MuZemike
22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
See Defending yourself against claims.
( ←) 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 note that JPBHarris ( talk · contribs), 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 ADM ( talk · contribs)? Rhomb ( talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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 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 note: 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
No action.
Tim Song (
talk)
22:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: 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)
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)
Administrator note 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)
Clerk note: no further action needed on SPI's part, marking as closed,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |