Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Interintel/Archive

03 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets:


 * Suspected Meat puppets:


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A sudden large number of SPA's have turned up at the article Bell's theorem, some have been looking for a particular undue statement to be excluded, whilst the other half have turned up at the article trying to get the content re-included. The account internintel has been inserting mentions of Joy Christian and his paper for several years, for example: and has lately been edit warring, see their latest contributions, all edit warring: Special:Contributions/Interintel. I think it is reasonable to conclude that this is Joy Christian but he speaks of Christian in the third person:. Now a number of other unused accounts have become active to defend the content's removal. Note that Joy Christian has never used the account Interintel to talk on the talk page but instead uses the 86.148.* ip:. The other two accounts are other SPAs that arrived to side with Christian. The Fredi account signs off as "Fred Diether" who appears to be an associate of Christian's. The other IP 173.162.53.225 may be helpful in the investigation as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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

The user Thomas_h_ray suddenly appeared on the scene and made as many edits in one day as had done in the past 4 years. And the edits are full of passion - somewhat surprising to me to see that tone, given no previous involvement in the subject. The term meat puppet should be thought about perhaps. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I made not one single edit to the Bell's Theorem article page. My comments have been strictly confined to the talk page. I am NOT going to defend myself against protesting your institution -- and I should say PASSIONATE institution -- of a tyranny of majority opinion, and suppression of facts. I WILL defend the Wikipedia enterprise against petty tyranny, if not here, then anywhere I can. Thomas h ray (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The Amazon reviews of Joy Christian's recently self-published book (through vanity press Brown Walker Press) feature the same cast of characters as in this sockpuppet investigation, each of whom gives a gushing review of the book complete with a five-star rating.  It seems likely to me that they are sock puppet alter-egos of Christian or, at the very least, meatpuppets (WP:MEATPUPPET).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well done Sławomir. That clarifies things. The reviews were so good, I almost impulsively ordered the book... kidding. History2007 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am very sure that Fred Diether (aka Carl F. Diether III) and Thomas H. Ray are very real, very different, people. I think User:Interintel is someone else, probably J C himself ... but he's been quiet for a while now. Fred has been a long term fan of Christian on the newsgroup sci.physics.foundations, of which he is a founder/mediator. Thomas is a newer supporter. Both have their own radical new theories which are somehow supported by Christan's ideas. I have been wasting my time on FQXi blogs for the last months trying to explain Bell's theorem to these guys, and trying to explain why Christian's model is fundamentally flawed. They've been wasting their time explaining why I'm an idiot. Quite a challenge. The first 20 pages of the book can be downloaded for free. They already contain both the allegedly fatal conceptual errors and allegedly fatal algebraic errors reported in http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504 by Richard Gill, and earlier by a number of other "authorities" in half a dozen unpublished papers on arXiv.org. Also, Joy was good enough to post a "one page paper"on arXiv in 2011, the whole thing in a nutshell, which is fun to read and deconstruct.Richard Gill (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For meat-puppetry, they need to be different people, for sock puppetry the same person. The question then is if Interintel corresponds to any of the IPs. But what you said is interesting: Fred, and Thomas also have their own fringe views.... way to go... History2007 (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You should order the book. Not because I think it's a good book, but because it will inform your opinions. Thomas h ray (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment User:FrediFizzx identifies as Fred Diether in his signature. User:86.148.6.36 has identified as  Joy Christian. Both appear on the FQXi discussion  as indepentent voices. I suspect Fred is more a suporter of Joy rather than sock puppetry. T H Ray also comments on the same discussion, again sounding like a suporter.--Salix (talk): 14:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am an newbie editor but always will support the truth and well balanced viewpoints in articles. I have never engaged in sock puppetry of any kind. Fred Diether (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a supporter of Christian's IDEAS in part. I am also an outspoken CRITIC of Christian's claim of "disproof." What I am not, is a shill for majority opinion. I will do everything in my power to keep Wikipedia from going any further down that road. Thomas h ray (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you could have pursued your goal (I think you called it to "defend the Wikipedia enterprise" further above) on a number of pages during your four years of editing (total of 8 edits in 4 years). We are just wondering why it happened here and now. That's all. History2007 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to assuage your curiosity, then. I was not even aware of Christian's framework (it isn't a theory) until about a year and a half ago. Since that time, I have independently evaluated and debated it with experts, and have been persuaded only since about October 2011 that it has merit -- that the majority opinion is refuted, and I say "majority opinion" because despite vigorous attempts at marginalization, Christian is not himself outside "mainstream physics." That being said, I am not affiliated with Christian nor any institution involved in this debate. I am, however, affiliated with Wikipedia, and I am deeply concerned that it maintain its integrity, and just as deeply I resent my own integrity being questioned.Thomas h ray (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it is a combination of meat puppetry and sock puppetry, Interintel does not identify as being Christian, I want to see if Interintel is linked to the ip which has identified as Christian. I have re-organized the list of individuals accordingly. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is clearly some "off-Wiki" interaction between the involved parties, and the sudden arrival of Thomas_h_ray on the scene may potentially be explained by a Mayday signal... History2007 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am only going to say this once more: Stop the innuendo. I post under my own name and I stand by my own reputation. Until you can say the same, if you want to bring charges -- do it in an open forum where I can face my accuser.Thomas h ray (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually Wikipedia policies do involve WP:SPI cases. So the opening of the case was valid. This is a routine SPI case, and there is no need for off-Wiki discussions really. I am still wondering, however, about the timing of your arrival. As I said 8 edits in 4 years, then a sudden passionate interest in defending the Wikipedia enterprise on a specific page just seemed interesting to me. That is all. Anyway, let us wait for the results of the checks, then we will see. History2007 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I only involve myself in subjects I know something about, and this -- in addition to the article edits I have contributed -- happens to be one of them. Why you should turn that into finding my motives suspect, makes me suspicious of yours. Thomas h ray (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually my motives are clear: I had not even looked at the article before this week and not even thought about Bell's result for a couple of years, at least - although I had studied the topic in my misspent youth. I only walked over there because there was a question posted on the reliability talk page about the self-published nature of J. Christian's book and whether it was a vanity press. When I saw all the WP:COI and WP:Fringe items on the page and its talk, it was clearly just too much fringe and too much COI. The rest is all on the talk page. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, now I'm going to have to look up "vanity press" on Wikipedia to see if this publisher qualifies. I did look up the publisher on WP and saw no reference to "pay for publishing" as a vanity press would suggest. So bring some proof to your allegations or stop the libel. You and Wolfie have no business taking sides in this dispute, and no business deciding what qualifies as "self publishing."Thomas h ray (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * per WP:NLT I suggest you do not accuse other editors of libel as it has a legal implication. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So show some evidence that the publisher is a "vanity press" or withdraw the comment.Thomas h ray (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Question to Dennis Do any of the IPs approx geolocations match any of the 3 accounts with names here? History2007 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that information since I'm only an admin and not a Checkuser. The Checkuser can't release that information (connecting names to IPs) via WP:PRIVACY even if he does a CU check on them.  Generally, you have to rely on behavioral evidence rather than CU to link IPs and reg'ed accounts, unless the master has been linked to other IPs before by outing themselves. I'm not declining here, just "punting" to someone else more experienced and making observations, since it isn't a slam dunk case.    Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  19:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right that the lack of edit history is a barrier. Bu without releasing any personal info CU may yet make a determination. And given that J. Christian has identified himself in his IP, there is no hidden personal info about his approx geo-location. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * CU was declined on privacy grounds. But my guess is that if they had been on distinct continents a CU answer would have been a total failure, so we do not know. So the meat-puppet aspects need to be looked at as stated below. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by a13ean. I'm a physicist with no particular interest in Bell's theorem, until I noticed the attempted addition of patently fringe material into the article.  This seemed like a straightforward case since no one has yet managed to produce a WP:RS about Christian's work, but discussions on the talk page have been bogged down by the SPAs mentioned above.  I haven't looked at all the off-site evidence, but this seems like meatpuppetry if not actual socking.  a13ean (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I have no major interest in Bell's result either. I was just surprised by the fringe issues when I saw it. Anyway, user:FrediFizzx started on May 28, 2012 and so far has had 30 edits almost entirely about the Bell talk page, and no other pages. And user:Interintel stopped editing on May 28, 2012, and has not edited as of this writing. History2007 (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I don't mean to imply that you have any particular interest in it either. a13ean (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea what a "meat puppet" is, until today. One thing is VERY clear, however: while I have not used one iota of influence to push my private agenda, the editors have demonstrably, on record and shamelessly, kowtowed to Richard Gill and majority opinion. This will destroy the very soul of Wikipedia if not checked, and I don't intend to let it go unchallenged. Thomas h ray (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, I had no idea who Gill was until 2-3 days ago. I was just surprised that Diether and Christian directly acknowledged that mainstream sources such as Physical Review refused to publish the result, yet argued for it. That was my first clue, and then I checked more. And then many users confirmed that there are no WP:RS sources. It is WP:Fringe for sure. Now, please do enlighten us Thomas as to how you happened on the page yesterday. Was it just chance, or you saw a notice off-wiki? History2007 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I routinely monitor subjects of interest to me. The debate on FQXi, on Scott Aaronson's blog and elsewhere over this issue is well known, so if you only became acquainted with Gill a couple of days ago, you should check your own appearance of impropriety in kowtowing to his steering of opinion.  You don't seem to understand that I am not arguing Joy Christian's case -- I am arguing for Wikipedia's integrity.  The partisanship shown here is glaring, and disturbing.Thomas h ray (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So was there something on FQXi, etc. that mentioned the current debate on Wikipedia? History2007 (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Why don't you do your own investigation and monitoring, as I and all other honest investigators do, rather than taking someone else's word for it? I'm not going to confirm or deny any means you may guess of how I came to this page for two reasons:  1.  It's none of your business, and 2. It makes no material difference to the nature of the shady dealings going on here. Thomas h ray (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely some kind of shady dealings going on here. Dennis Brown has linked me to User:Interintel.  ???  I have absolutely no idea who that user is nor do I particularly care who it is. Fred Diether (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You just said it: "I'm not going to confirm or deny any means you may guess of how I came to this page"... That did produce a smile, almost a chuckle. So I will stop now. I think I have said what I needed to say and I know what I needed to know. Have a good day. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have spoken volumes about how you make your editorial decisions, what you "know," and the value that should be attached thereto. Have a wonderful day yourself. Thomas h ray (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to contend that this witch hunt was initated by IRWolfie and backed by History2007 to unjustly influence the content dispute discussion on the talk page of Bell's theorem. I have repeatedly suggested and requested a discussion about compromise so that the article will be stable and have a well balanced viewpoint. Both users have refused to even talk about compromise and have engaged in constant intimidation during the content dispute discussion which is very disruptive for proper resolution of the dispute. You can see from History2007's contributions above that what I am saying is valid. They both should stop interferring with a proper content dispute discussion that involves some kind of compromise. Thank you. Fred Diether (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have said it before, let me say it again. A local compromise can not override Wikipedia guidelines or policies. No group of users on a specific page can compromise to override WP:RS until that guideline changes. No group of users can agree to write an article without WP:RS sources or type statements that breach WP:V. You have admitted that you have no WP:RS sources, and are unlikely to get them. Right? And apart from the other 2 "book reviewers" no one else will talk compromise with you to override WP:Fringe. Nor can they. It will be against policy to "compromise to breach policy". Local consensus cannot override Wikipedia policy. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly clear that you keep misrepresenting what the dispute is really about. I contend that since Dr. Christian is an expert physicist on Bell's theorem as evidenced by funding from FQXi (FQXi is not going to fund someone that is not an expert) on this very topic that Dr. Christian himself can be considered a reliable source for the disputed content according to Wikipedia policy.  And for the same reason the disputed content is not fringe.  So no Wikipedia guidelines or policies are being violated in my viewpoint of the dispute.  I will update the Compromise section of the talk page to make sure that will hopefully and finally be clear to you.  Compromise is usually a good solution to have a stable article with a well balanced viewpoint. Thank you. Fred Diether (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, who said: it is totally impossible for any kind of "disproof" to get published in a peer-reviewed journal of stature.? Who said that? How do you spell fringe? And read the rest of that as well, to remind yourself of what you wrote. I said it here. Enough of this now. History2007 (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have no concept of what I am talking about so you should recuse yourself from this dispute. It is impossible because of an almost religious belief behind the topic. That is something the readers should decide whether they want to believe in it or not; not you, I or anyone at Wikipedia. Well, this is not the place to discuss that so I guess this will end up at arbitration if no compromise is reached. Have fun. Fred Diether (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I am really aggravated by these allegations. I am not affiliated with Joy Christian, Fred Diether or any institution except Wikipedia, which I profoundly recognize needs me more than I need it. When administrators speak of "tag teaming" with no reference to the editors who are "tag teaming" to promote majority opinion at the expense of objective facts and even discourse, the intent of the whole enterprise is subverted. Thomas h ray (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe Wikipedia works mainly because of cooperation. That spirit of cooperation has been broken here.  Consensus (majority rule) is meant to be applied when all parties agree to it.  I still maintain that compromise (cooperation) is the best solution for a stable article with a well balanced viewpoint. And I do believe that is why Wikipedia works. Fred Diether (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's already been pointed out that all parties do not need to agree for there to be consensus: . Also considering you have only edited for 7 days and only on this article I find your statements of certainty about the best editing practices in wikipedia, quite frankly, puzzling. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We are talking about what works here not what consensus is. Cooperation is what works and I would expect most everyone here at Wikipedia knows that except you and History2007. And I already told you to stop intimidating me as a newbie editor.  I have been around the block a few times.  Thank you. Fred Diether (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dennis, DeltaQuad and AGK for your attention to this matter. I think it is time to conclude it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm hesitant to endorse, but won't decline either. This looks much more like meatpuppetry with the named accounts.  CU won't identify IPs with names, so doubtful it would be helpful here.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * - Checkusers don't disclose connections between named accounts and IP addresses, and as the other two accounts are suspected as meatpuppets, a determination will have to be made on behavioral grounds alone. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The IPs are unrelated to each other, on different continents per the WHOIS info linked above.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;
 * - FrediFizzx and Interintel, based on convincing behavioral evidence. Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to push this to an endorse for all accounts. The talkpage of Bell's theorem connects a few dots by the users emphasizing words in the same way when they are trying to get a point across, they !vote with the EXACT same text to express their oppose, but further more they both use quotes from other sources to justify their arguments. With that and the same subject area, both starting to reappear out of the blue at the same time I think gives us enough for a check. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The named accounts are technically ❌. However, I blocked one account indefinitely for making legal threats while logged-out. Given that these accounts are obviously 'tag-teaming' in order to subvert consensus, a meat-puppetry (or generic 'disruption') block is, in my view, justified. . AGK  [•] 11:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, both blocked. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)