Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lima

Lima

Lima (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lima/Archive.

Report date December 20 2009, 15:01 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Soidi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Decahill (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• LCahill (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by JPBHarris

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)

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 [7] and directed user:Leadwind to comment on it using the user:Lima account [8]. 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 [9]. 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 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)

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

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by JPBHarris (talk) 15:01, 20 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)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed Lima (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

• Soidi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Decahill (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)

Conclusions

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

---