Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne/Archive

Evidence submitted by ScienceApologist
Activities at Nonstandard cosmology and tired light lead me to believe that the IPs associated with this user who was a banned Wikipedian are similar. Anger towards mainstream physics and astronomy as seen in the sockpuppeteer's actions at Albert Einstein and David Hilbert are of note. In the interest of avoiding WP:OUTING, I will tell the person who e-mails me privately who this person is IRL and show the off-wiki evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Unlikely, so I've taken no action. This latest IP uses edit summaries rather frequently, while the other two don't. Evidence on the first account would be difficult as there is a four year gap. Although the two IPs do geolocate to Florida, they are too far apart for me to assume they are the same person. I suggest bringing problematic actions to the attention of administrators. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

21 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These are obsessed IPs of this user that all geolocate to his last known location and correspond with identity revealed in previous investigations by the user. User is subject to a ban and is editing. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See Requests for arbitration/Licorne for more background, if you're a glutton for punishment. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I had been wondering if they really were the same but if you look at



who has just contributed to Talk:Tired light and seems the same as many of the other ips there it does definitely look to me as if the ip has done similar things to Licorne in trying to run down Einstein and support the German SS. Dmcq (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Assuming Tired light is the locus of the dispute, that article has been semi-protected. There hasn't been any activity on the talk page for several days now, so I don't think semi-protecting that will help any right now. Basically, no further action is needed at this time. –MuZemike 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

19 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This is clearly the same user who posts articles promoting D. Mamas Physics Essays papers which are fringe theory publications. Since the user is banned, this IP appears to be block evasion. jps (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2014 (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

 * Matches up, blocked one month, closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  00:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Classic behavior by the sockpuppet on one of his favorite bugbears, tired light. I also note that an earlier commentator was blocked as a sock puppet of a different user, so it may be worthwhile to see if these two can be combined. jps (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In case you had any doubts: . jps (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2017 (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

 * - CU cannot be used to publicly connect named accounts to IP's. is stale so there's nothing to check. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As you know, jps, CU won't connect IPs; all we have is behaviour. I agree about 47.201.179.7 and 47.201.178.44, and have blocked their nice little range, 47.201.178.0/23, for two weeks. It seems unlikely to have any collateral damage. Clerk and others, am I supposed to place any tags or messages? I don't know how to do that with a rangeblock. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC).
 * You can tag the two IP's actually reported if you think it might be useful. Take a look at SPI admin instructions if you're unsure on what to do. Personally, I don't think it's necessary. With everyone blocked, I'm closing this case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sir Sputnik. No, I don't see it as likely to be useful to tag them. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC).

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The same pattern as all the rest. Obsession with tired light. jps (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) jps (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2018 (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

 * Reinstated the rangeblock. GABgab 17:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Range-blocked the last IP he was active upon, but he came back for more to argue anew with this new IP. jps (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2018 (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

 * ... again... GABgab 03:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same edit pattern and IP location as long time banned user. See archive. This IP was blocked before as soch puppet of Licorne with a range block: by user. DVdm (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can the block be made indefinite? I know that there are good reasons not to do this, but it's clear that this IP just waits it out over the course of years(!). Allowing an appeal is fine in case third parties get caught up in the net. jps (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2018 (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

 * The last rangeblock was of Special:Contributions/47.201.178.0/23 for two months. I suggest it be renewed for four months. It appears that there is only one user on that range, so there's little risk of collateral. The last blocking admin was User:GeneralizationsAreBad. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * GABgab 02:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Have recently encountered an IP user pushing very stridently for inclusion of a theory that chess originated with the ancient Roman game of ludus latrunculorum. The mainstream view of chess historians is that chess originated in India. Objections on the Talk:History of chess page to including the Roman theory per WP:UNDUE are met with sarcasm, e.g.. The interest in the origins of chess appears to be recent, but editing history shows several areas of overlap with another IP in this range, 47.201.178.44 who has previously been blocked as a sockpuppet of Licorne. Areas of overlap included non-mainstream astrophysics theories (various pages, but specific overlap in Quantum Entanglement), Kelly Evans and George Armstrong Custer. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I pointed out 3 articles on unrelated topics which were edited by both IP's, namely Quantum Entanglement, Kelly Evans and George Armstrong Custer. Given that both IP's are in the same range (47.201.*.*) it seems highly improbable that this is coincidental. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the problem... there are legitimate edits coming from this IP range too. The talk page activity at History of Chess is disruptive and trollish however. Maybe just block this particular IP for a week or three? After all he is evading a ban. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2019 (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

 * The connection to Licorne seems possible but a checkuser won't comment on IPs so all we have to go on is behavior. Working against your argument is that these edits are outside the last rangeblock of Licorne, which was of Special:Contributions/47.201.178.0/23. This new chess editor has never edited astronomy. The article History of chess remains under indef semiprotection so there isn't a current crisis. The guy (even if his argument about chess history is implausible) will be restricted to the talk page. In your new sock report you included Special:Contributions/47.201.178.44 as an IP to be investigated though that person is left over from the previous Licorne report and has never edited chess. You would need to convince us that (chess guy) is the same person as the earlier  (astronomy guy) who has not been active since July 2018. EdJohnston (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MaxBrowne2, thanks for pointing out Quantum entanglement. Can you propose a new block (or rangeblock) that would cover these edits? I extracted all the edits from Special:Contributions/47.201.0.0/16 out of the last 500 at Quantum entanglement. I assume that is also the same guy (=Licorne) though not active since October 2018:

14:27, 4 April 2019‎ 47.201.182.47 t block‎ 93,417 bytes +150‎  →‎History × 14:02, 21 February 2019‎ 47.201.182.47 t block‎ 93,411 bytes +150‎  →‎History: additional source in agreement × 18:50, 3 February 2019‎ 47.201.182.47 t block‎ 93,536 bytes +283‎  →‎History: another perfectly good source agreeing with Santuary, Krennikov, and Matzkin. × 04:05, 29 January 2019‎ 47.201.182.47 t block‎  93,536 bytes +283‎  →‎History × 02:19, 25 January 2019‎ 47.201.182.47 t block‎ 93,564 bytes +283‎  →‎History: perfectly good and pertinent reference × 04:20, 6 September 2018‎ 47.201.190.53 t block‎ 90,555 bytes +49‎  →‎History × 15:06, 27 August 2018‎ 47.201.190.53 t block‎ 88,264 bytes +47‎  →‎History × 13:42, 1 April 2018‎ 47.201.178.44 t block‎ 76,958 bytes +52‎  →‎History: Exact Quote must be included. × 13:36, 1 April 2018‎ 47.201.178.44 t block‎  76,963 bytes +57‎  →‎History × 04:31, 16 March 2018‎ 47.201.178.44 t block‎ 76,070 bytes +558‎  × 06:06, 6 March 2018‎ 47.201.178.44 t block‎ (0) +7‎  ×[7] 19:39, 5 March 2018‎ 47.201.178.44 t block‎ 75,512 bytes -338‎  Aspect's letter is not referring to Super-determinism. He refers to detectors being coupled to generators. Aspect's letter belongs in the Introduction. × 04:32, 5 March 2018‎ 47.201.178.44 t block‎  (0) +2‎  ×[3] 20:18, 4 March 2018‎ 47.201.178.44 t block‎ 75,613 bytes +326‎  ×

– EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The last rangeblock of Licorne was of Special:Contributions/47.201.178.0/23 for four months, but since its expiry there have been no more edits in the range. On the other hand, due to the reappearance of the same guy (using a different Forida IP) in chess-related matters, and at the Citizenship Clause where he is changing the article and not just the talk page, it does appear that some kind of block of 47.201.182.* might be needed. For now I am blocking for six months for evasion of the block of  and see how it goes from there. He hasn't used  since 2018 so it's not worth blocking. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same IP range as before. Same M.O. jps (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

I'd like to endorse that this is Licorne. Also, can an admin please skim the talk page of Tired light, see that this person has been coming back and messing with the article as a wide variety of IPs for nearly 10 years, and seriously consider indefinitely semi-protecting the Tired light article? The time saved by locking out this perpetual sockmaster, time waster, and fringe theory pusher is well worth it. Crossroads -talk- 03:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Quack. Blocked. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 04:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Tired light semi-protected. Closing. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 05:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Please, can you block this IP who just waits out for months and then goes right back to arguing against mainstream science, anti-semiticism, etc.? jps (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this IP is still unblocked. It is clearly a banned editor and now I'm reverting him per WP:DENY: . jps (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2020 (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 apparently goes back a long time: Requests for arbitration/Licorne -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked 47.201.178.0/23 for 6 months, and based on the history, I'm assuming we'll be right back here in December. Based on some of the evidence in the archive, that might not even be a wide enough range, but it's about as big as I'm comfortable blocking for such a long time. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)