User talk:JPBHarris

Please leave any comment below:

User:Esoglou

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)[reply]

You are correct, well spotted. I suspect he will continue to create new accounts, fail to link back to the old (or now new) master claiming WP policy ignorance. JPBHarris (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Defteri

I have a good feeling user:Defteri is also a clone of user:Lima. In that case, it should probably be banned as well. ADM (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes their edits are similar and I have found at least three articles where more that one account has edited. Wait and see if there is confirmation of a link. JPBHarris (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation please?

I just stumbled upon this edit of yours. Are you sure you didn't make a mistake? I couldn't find any similarity in edit patterns between those editors, and even if they had "edit[ed] an article in the same topic area", that would hardly be sufficient to suspect sockpuppetry, would it? Huon (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No not a mistake. JPBHarris (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you then please explain your reasoning? Kelvin Case seems interested in articles on astronomy and neolithic trade, while Harmakheru edits an article on a specific ancient Egyptian text and otherwise is mainly interested in the Catholic Church article and the relevant discussions (that's where I encountered him). Those seem to me unrelated areas of interest; what's the "article in the same topic area" you referred to? Did I miss something? Huon (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked this account indefinitely because it appears to exist for the sole purpose of making accusations of sockpuppetry against other users. Considering many of these are speculative, and that this account has itself been implicated in sockpuppetry, I cannot see that this account has any legitimate, non-disruptive purpose. Hesperian 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLATANT ABUSE OF YOUR ADMINISTRATOR RIGHTS.

I made ONE request to a user to identify if he was an alternate/sock account. No different than what was directed at me on my talk page by user:Karanacs [1];
I have raised TWO SPIs into user:Lima BOTH of which confirmed sockpuppets in use by user:Lima;
I was ASKED to contribute to a third SPI into user:Lima by user:ADM which confirmed yet another user:Lima sockpuppet;
These were not merely speculative but evidence was provided. The use of “many” is clearly and demostrably unwarranted;
The fact that I have been “implicated” in sockpuppetry is utterly irrelevant (I maintain that the other account wasn’t mine – probably someone using the same PC before/after, the result was only likely not confirm – but just have to take it on the chin as those are the rules). So you take it upon yourself to change the rules and punished me twice for the same offence, and you complain about this abuse [2];
There has been no disruptive editing as well you know [3].
Your action demonstrates a clear bias against editors with a certain view over at the CC RfC [4]. This is clear from your ridicule of Xander [5]. You have clearly abused your administrator rights. JPBHarris (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JPBHarris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hesperian has abused his admin rights. There was no justification for this block. This is just retaliatory action due to opposing views over at [6]. See above.

Decline reason:

Quack quack. Tim Song (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your extreme focus on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lima does seem remarkable. I also can't help but find this edit interesting. If Hesperian had blocked you solely for disagreeing with them on the RfC, that would indeed be troublesome... but I'm not sure that I see your having expressed any opinion at the RfC, other than hounding Lima. Is that really your only interest, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]