Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haeretica Pravitas/Archive

21 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Indépendance des Chercheurs was heavily involved in creating and editing the now-deleted article Superbradyon and was vociferous in defending it when it was brought to AfD. During the AfD discussion, IdC edit-warred on the related article Luis González-Mestres, and was blocked for 48 hours. When multiple IPs with no previous edits from the 83.199.0.0/16 range showed up at the AfD to carry on IdC's arguments, using the very same expressions, admin EdJohnston extending their block an additional 7 days for socking. After many complaints, and a request filed at RFPP, admin Cirt semi-protected the AfD, thus making it inaccessible to IP editors. Today, a brand-new account, Jaumeta, showed up at the AfD, removed the original IP signature from a number of previously posted comments, and replaced the signature with their own, thus taking authorship of these comments. This creates the reasonable suspicion that IdC and Jaumeta are the same person (or the same collective - see IdC's comment on their talk page here: "Indépendance des Chercheurs is well-known in an institution like CNRS and is not a person but a collective.") Behavioral evidence is sufficient to block IdC for being a role account, and Jaumeta for disruptive socking, but a checkuser scan might be helpful in determining if there are any other connected accounts in the IP range. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2011 (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
Fairly based on similar locations and user agents, but meatpuppetry is also a possibility. –MuZemike 07:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not trying too hard to keep his identity a secret. On his user page at User:Jaumeta he puts in Catalan "Ciències, ètica, societat. No a una policia de les opinions a l'internet." Luis González-Mestres, though he works in France, is identified in our article as a Catalan physicist. Since the socking has been outrageous, a block appears necessary. If this results in him continuing to abuse Wikipedia from his blog, we can put up with it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way, Jaumeta is a single purpose account here to push the same agenda as the master. As such I've blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The original master was listed as

24 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

There has been persistent sock (or meat) puppetry on Luis González-Mestres and on Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) (before it closed.) The sockmaster and one other sock are already blocked, but Haeretica has recently started editing the article on Luis with an identical writing style and unproductive edits. His user page also refers to 'fighting Medieval Inquisition on the XXIth century internet' which is very similar to language used by Independance and the anons. Per WP:DUCK, I feel comfortable thinking that Haeretica is another sock and should thus probably be blocked. (There was a lot of iphopping also, but the article is semiprotected so it's no longer an issue.) Kevin (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

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

''Note: I was working on this before the above was posted, and posted it shortly after. I'm deleting my complaint and merging my comment into this one:'' User:Indépendance des Chercheurs was blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring on Luis González-Mestres, attempting to remove clean-up tags. The block was extended to 7 days for IP sockpuppetry from the 83.199.0.0/16 range on the AfD of a related article. When the AfD was semi-proteced, the account User:Jaumeta was created to continue. After I filed an SPI, Jaumeta was indef blocked as a sock. Back on the original article, Luis González-Mestres, IP socks continued edit-warring to remove the template. I brought this to an admin's attention, and the article was semi'd. Now, the recently-created User:Haeretica Pravitas – whose user page reads "Fighting Medieval Inquisition in XXI-th century internet. Also interested in more general ethics problems" echoing the general tone of persecution and complaints about "Internet Police" by Jaumeta and the IPs on the AfD – has shown up to edit the Luis González-Mestres article, adding POV material (from the viewpoint of LGM), some of which had been previously removed from the article due to COI, OR, RS, SPS and POV problems. This is clearly another sock account, created to get around the semi-protection of the article, the same behavior as seen before. True, the editor has learned a few things: they did enough edits after creating the account to become autoconfirmed. Behavioral evidence is sufficient to block this new sock, no checkuser is really needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I agree that behavior is sufficient to justify an indef block of User:Haeretica Pravitas as a sock of Indépendance des Chercheurs. The latter's seven-day block (which I had imposed) has recently expired, and we should probably let him resume editing on a wait-and-see basis. But our tolerance should be limited. EdJohnston (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Switched to correct master, newest reported account is currently the master. Blocked the master for two weeks per previous evasion, are there any more that just haven't been found yet? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two IPs added/blocked after disruption of AFD. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The two named accounts are matches. No comments on the IPs and no sleepers.  TN X Man  14:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocks have been issued here, so we're good. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that two more IP socks have shown up at the ongoing AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One IP blocked by DeltaQuad, the other by me. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston blocked the 90 IP, I blocked all the 83 IPs, these are all from the same relative area. AfD Semi'd. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

27 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

RFPP -- DQ  (t)   (e)  20:13, 27 May 2011 (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

 * Blocked, just paperwork. The Two /17 ranges are implausable to block right now/would affect many users. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  20:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

30 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Another single purpose account that showed up as soon as they were autoconfirmed to edit Luis González-Mestres and the associated AfD. Their edits to the main article introduced tons of OR and have the same tone/language abnormalities as the previous socks. So far their edits to the AfD aren't as bad as previously (although they are still missing the point,) but their edits to the main article are highly problematic. I'd be shocked if this isn't another sock of the same person. Kevin (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the block on the first, Shirik. I added a second potential sockpuppet.  I'm not as confident that this one is a sock, but he is editing the same handful of LGM-related talk pages that Negun was editing with the same writing style, and same paranoia.  I suspect it is a sleeper waiting for autoconfirmed status, so having noticed it I thought I'd mention it.   Kevin (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2011 (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
Blocked. This certainly doesn't help his case (frwiki): 14:26, 05 April 2011 till infinity by Moyg; Reason: Abus d'utilisation de comptes multiples (faux-nez)) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This one isn't quacking. Confirmation/Sleepers since they are waiting to be autoconfirmed now? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  11:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following:
 * TN X Man 13:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone's already blocked, but I updated the tags. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 13:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone's already blocked, but I updated the tags. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone's already blocked, but I updated the tags. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

30 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Another brand-new editor showing up at Articles for deletion/Luis González-Mestres to defend the honor of LGM. This one's style is slightly different, so I would think meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry. Queleralo, who has only edited since May 26, but whose user page says I do not like being told : "Achanta la muy"., has edited only the CERN article (until autoconfirmed) and the AfD. This is not a new user and not someone here to improve the encycylopedia, they're here solely to salvage the LGM article. I suggest a CU for other accounts awaiting confirmation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (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

 * Let me guess he is on a different range now? Of course sleepers again pls. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  20:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Range and computer. I knocked out three other accounts we missed, and DeltaQuad has placed one-two week softblocks on the following ranges at my direction, in a probably futile attempt to play whack-a-mole:
 * 90.24.0.0/16
 * 83.202.0.0/16
 * 90.46.0.0/16 (two weeks, more than one sockfarm there)
 * 82.123.0.0/16
 * I'll make notes on all this for other checkusers should this guy pop up again. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:Hersfold above:
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

01 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Same general pattern as the last socks that have shown up. He isn't quacking full strength yet, but I'm pretty positive it's another sock and will start shortly. Started off only editing articles about the Inquisition and Catalonia (both of which are constant areas of interest here) followed by jumping in to the LGM article to introduce poorly sourced stuff (including some unsourced negative BLP stuff.) Kevin (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2011 (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
This account's one edit at Luis González-Mestres (now deleted per the AfD) is pretty good evidence of the connection. An indefinite block of Boulgre seems logical. If anyone comes back to recreate the LGM article it could be salted. EdJohnston (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

09 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Whack-a-mole: New IP sock attempting to turn Sheldon Lee Glashow, Sidney Coleman , and Lee Smolin into coatracks to get in info on Luis González-Mestres, subject of now deleted and salted article. All edits have been reverted by various editors, no CU necessary, behavior is blindingly obvious. Consult archive for IP ranges that were previously blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2011 (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

 * IP blocked 2 weeks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

16 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

More coatrack info promoting Luis González-Mestres, this time into The Trouble with Physics, adding EL to a blog that features the string "Mestres" 44 times on its front page, and the string "Trouble with Physics" exactly once. Note also similarity of IP to 83.199.115.9, another HP sock-duck blocked last week for adding promotion of Gonzalez-Mestres to several bios, including one of Lee Smolin (author of The Trouble with Physics). betsythedevine (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2011 (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

 * Quack. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  02:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

16 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This looks like retaliatory editing by HP on The Trouble with Physics using IP socks. One IP removed a name from the list of scientists who criticised Lee Smolin, for being non-notable, and because a blog was the source. I restored, on the grounds that the scientist has an article and is therefor Wiki-notable, and blogs are acceptable sources for the opinion of the blogger (the scientist involved). The second IP reverted. This appears to me to be "If I'm not notable and can't get my stuff into this article then I'm going to get rid of others as well" retaliation. (See previous soon-to-be-closed report and the archives for background.) Maybe HP should be community banned so that his socking edits can be deleted when seen without 3RR probelms, and in that way avoid individual IP and range blocks? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This had occurred to me as well. One thing speaking against it may be that these are UK ip's - have we previously blocked any non-french ones as being HP?  In any case, since these IP's appear to be changing pretty quicklike, not too much point in blocking them.  Kevin (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * They are just evading at this point, so I have protected the article. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)