Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antichristos/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Antichristos

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


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

Sudden burst of inactivity on Entropy (arrow of time) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch by new users / inactive accounts since February 5. Accounts pushes same fringe POV, reverting to each others' versions. Account first edit matches (Feb 5 for 497glbig, Feb 5 for Wyhiugl, Feb 10 for Sage321 ). At least one of WP:SOCK/WP:SPA/WP:TAGTEAM seem to apply. I have no idea if CheckUser is required, or what's involved, so I'm requesting it. If it's overkill or unwarranted, feel free to proceed as you usually would in a non-CheckUser case.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:56, 14 February 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]

information Administrator note Entropy (arrow of time) protected for 1 week. All accounts already blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 04:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

New user suddenly making loads of edits and adding citations with facility. Edits seem similar to Antichristos and I checked the first ip and it pointed to the Russian Federation. Seems to be avoiding editing the exact same articles but still concentrating on entropy and gravitation and Planck and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin adding strange notions with quotes in the citations which don't actually back up what's said. Dmcq (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see when I came across this before I filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Systemizer instead. I believe Systemizer and Antichristos are the same. Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 6 June 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]
17 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I came here from Talk:Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#Antichristos. Didn't react well to me asking him if he was related [1] (or indeed to this SPI: [2]); editing Metric expansion of space and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in what look like familiar ways. Could well be 91.122.2.169 William M. Connolley (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I think 95.55.119.36 and several other IPS are definitely Chronocrator from the edit pattern. Looking at AntiChristos --BozMo talk 08:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I believe AntiChristos and Systemizer should really have been counted as the same. Dmcq (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed the following are the same:

18 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Reverted same material. Could you perhaps semi the page for a while? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • no No action taken. Not enough behavioral to note that this IP belongs to one person or another. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
06 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


All four users have made related contributions to the same two articles, Gravitational potential and Gravity well (see [3], [4], [5] and [6]. The edits cite the same unreliable source [ https://sites.google.com/site/eschatopaedia]. Only User:U5ard has edited anything else. This user has just been blocked for edit warring. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

There's a handful of IP's here [7].

Probably Antichristos (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DVdm (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The strange little diamonds in the references of Antichristos (see this diff for instance) are the same as those is the new edits ([8]). Case seems clear. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

It's  Likely that

are the same.

It's also  Likely that

are the same. Note that Io865we has already been blocked independently.

Based on behavior and technical evidence I would certainly think that they are all one and the same. Antichristos is stale so I can't speak to him, will need to be called based on behavior. Amalthea 13:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note I'm fairly sure that these are Antichristos; case merged with existing one, and all socks blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User:I786ei appeared editing Gravity well with exactly the same edits shortly after the first sockpuppet investigation concluded. Moreover, the randomly-generated username fits the same pattern as the others that are now blocked. The IP addresses are also editing Gravity well with the same editing pattern, and from the same IP range as those already associated with User:Antichristos. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 89.110.8.61 to the list. Another IP from the same range making the same disruptive edits. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • There's a similarity regarding the editor name with the other known socks of Antichristos, but that account hasn't edited since April 2012 and has only made one edit. Could be seen as block evasion if a pattern emerges but one edit isn't enough to go on. A CU might be warranted given the history of socking from Antichristos.
  • Of the IP addresses, 89.110.21.24 does not appear to have the same editing style. The others look likely.
  • I suggest that the articles should be protected so that only registered editors can edit, given the amount of disruption that has been going on for over 18 months. --HighKing (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you made a mistake in bullet number two? These IP addresses have made identical edits, and are almost certainly the same user. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basing it on the fact that 89.110.21.24 waxes lyrically in the edit summaries compared to the blank edit summaries of the other IP addresses. --HighKing (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first time that he works with lyrical summaries. See contributions of other socks Wyhiugl, 95.55.112.91, 91.122.1.39, 89.110.2.109, 91.122.86.108. - DVdm (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs all have the same geographical location and make the same edits as one another. They are also from the same IP range as other confirmed socks. That's clear quacking. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

25 March 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Just admitted: "Since the universe is holographic, you guys are just a few of my seven-plus billion socks."

Bad, unsourced, controversial and flatly wrong edits to various gravity related articles. Ever returning. Most recent IP now resorting to personal attacks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Strange things at Minimum total potential energy principle DVdm (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2016 (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]

  • The technical data for Antichristos is  Stale and checkusers won't comment on the relation of IPs to accounts. Looking at the IPs listed, they belong to the same ranges (89.110.XX and 91.122.XX), belong to the same ISP, and they geolocate to the same location. It's quite likely that the IPs are the same individual. However, that's not inherently bad as the ISP could cycle IPs quickly. Behavioral evidence will need to be presented to determine if any range blocks are warranted. Moving to the open queue. Mike V • Talk 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re behavioral evidence request: see contributions, starting at the most recent. - DVdm (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IPs haven't edited in a while. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Saint-Peterburg at Binding energy again, comment [9] about merging SPI cases by user Manul. - DVdm (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2016 (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]

26 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

These unmerged SPIs are the same sockmaster:

The Saint Petersberg IPs interspersed with the named socks, along with the usual nonsense fringe edits, makes the connections obvious to those familiar with the case. For instance Spengler was a focus back in 2013.[10] I am leaving a note to an admin who has dealt with this sockmaster before. Checkuser is needed since there are certainly more named socks than listed above.

The current range blocks of 89.110.0.0/19 and 91.122.0.0/21 will last another year. Given the above IPs, this rangecontrib, and the activity of 91.122.12.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from 2013, it looks like 91.122.0.0/21 should be extended to 91.122.0.0/20.

There is a new 178.66 range, but since the rangecontribs tool is down again I can't see the extent of the disruption. Manul ~ talk 08:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: As I said, I left a note to an admin who knows this sockmaster and I expect he will show up shortly. This is a super-obvious case, and there's no sense spending an hour or more raking through the details when we can utilize existing knowledge. Would you please reopen until the admin shows up? It didn't even cross my mind that someone evaluate the checkuser request until that happened. Manul ~ talk 14:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Please reopen the checkuser request. I'll contact two additional admins who know The Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg. Manul ~ talk 14:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: That old sock was listed by mistake; I've removed it. That shouldn't derail the checkuser request. Again, I didn't expect you to evaluate the CU request without the admin input I mentioned. Assuming I'm on my own, here are some connections:
  • 91.122.10.213 is just outside the blocked range 91.122.0.0/21 that covers IPs in the previous SPIs. All are from Saint Petersburg.
  • Notice Attractor321 editing on the heels of 91.122.10.213.[11]
  • Becoming familiar with the particular brand of nonsense may take some time, but perhaps the following will be sufficient. It includes funny ideas about Oswald Spengler, Jews, and gravity that, from what I can tell, are professed by no other human being, living or dead. Compare:
  • The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well[12]
  • At that, the Semitic gravity has lent the Aryan heat into existence[13]
This assumes the 8i347g8gl SPI mentioned above is the same sock master, which should be clear from the IPs and the particular brand of nonsense. Is that sufficient? Again, this is obvious to anyone familiar with The Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg. It's just a matter getting you acquainted as well. Manul ~ talk 17:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: You agree that Attractor321 is the guy, right? The reason I requested CU is that he may have used named accounts elsewhere (and may be using them now). Also, there looks to be unreverted edits in Synergy, and having the other socks will help the cleanup there and possibly elsewhere. That there is a new unblocked 178.66 range increases the need for CU. Would you please reopen the CU request? Manul ~ talk 20:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: You concur that Attractor321 is Antichristos, but you don't think CU should be used? If not, would you please reopen the CU request? See my previous comment. I can't imagine a reason not to run CU here. Manul ~ talk 09:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

To be added, all the Saint Petersburg IPs that contributed to Heat death of the universe as from 15-May-2017

All edits can be undone by restoring this version. And then, let's put a long term semi-protection on the article. - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and restored. Will request semi-pp upon reemergence. - DVdm (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only account that is not  Stale is Attractor321. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manul: The case isn't closed. It will be decided based on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far nobody has pointed to any currently-active registered accounts that follow the same behavior. So I'd be tempted to close with the /20 rangeblock that was proposed, plus a year of semiprotection for Synergy. This guy probably won't stop, so we'll just have to keep a look out for recurrence of the same pattern. Experience suggests that there are lots of IPs in St. Petersburg and it is impractical to block all of them. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the eloquent fringiness of the material at this link, on User talk:Eric Kvaalen, I would go ahead with a block of User:Attractor321 for being the same person as Antichristos, based on behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've semiprotected Synergy and Heat death of the universe for two years each, and I've blocked 91.122.0.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two years, based on this report. Also blocked User:Attractor321 as a sock. I don't know the rules well enough to say if a checkuser is justified. Manul, I assume you would be looking for registered sleepers, as well as registered accounts that are causing trouble that we are not aware of yet.
From reviewing the range contributions of the /20, I notice that the following articles were affected since late 2015:
The reason for listing article names is that we are limited in what we can achieve using blocks. We may have to do more semiprotections in the future. Another reason is that somebody who was very patient could go through these articles and check for any past disruption from 91.* IPs that was never corrected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now blocked User:Attractor321 indef as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing left to do here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quacking. Restored obscure content added by sock.[14][15][16] [etc.] Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2017 (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]

GeneralizationsAreBad - Blocked, tagged, closed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Extremely similar edits[17] to Oswald Spengler‎ as previous socks, including formatting weirdness.[18] Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2017 (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]

22 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Very first edit was to restore content favored by sock at Oswald Spengler (compare to this edit from previous sock). This was less than two hours after the article's protection expired. Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the checkuser request was a mistake. I was confused due to overlap with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blastikus, who has used sleepers. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2017 (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]

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - All previous accounts are already stale so there's nothing to check against here. Besides this is obvious enough to not require CU attention. Please block this account indefinitely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quacking addition of very lengthy pseudoscience about gravity and heat-death to the article on Oswald Spengler. Both of these match this sock's long-term patterns. Grayfell (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2018 (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]

26 November 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


"New" user, (but see first edit) with same M.O. and semi-nonsense content in energy related articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2016#Strange things at Minimum total potential energy principle where similar fringe topics are highligted, also appearing in their new edits ("gravitoelectric potential" etc...) See also [19]. User was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. DVdm (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2018 (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]

  • Based on the content of their edits, this is likely the same person as Attractor321 (talk · contribs), who was globally locked for cross-wiki abuse by a steward, User:Rxy, on 21 April, 2018. (He adds material to hardcore physics articles like potential energy that sounds like science fiction). I have some previous knowledge of Antichristos and my name is in the above archive. For some of Attractor321's views, see a page they wrote on Wikiquote. Attractor321 is probably stale unless a steward such as User:Rxy has saved some records. Of course Attractor321 a.k.a. Antichristos might have other socks that haven't been recognized yet. The archive of this SPI includes behavioral evidence that Antichristos and Attractor321 are the same person. In the past, some admins have applied a bunch of semiprotections and rangeblocks to stop Antichristos's IP socks (see above, in the archive). Similar blocks and protections need to be applied if the overall behavior starts up again. Unless there are sleepers, it is not obvious that checkuser would be needed in this case. My prediction is that Exergizer will take no notice of the 48-hour edit warring block, will resume the war and will get indef blocked. The admin who does that block is likely to cite this SPI case as the authority, unless there is some reason not to. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EdJohnston: No sleepers visible. But I agree this isn't a new user, and have no objection to an indef now, if you want to place one. Courcelles (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've blocked Exergizer indef per my reasoning above and per Courcelles' comment. Tagged them as a suspected sock. This SPI report can probably be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case closed. Courcelles (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


User now blocked on the English Wikiquote as an obvious DUCK. Other recent accounts there, now also blocked, are Ufj7v and 7jtyghe. These other two however have not edited the English Wikipedia while O47ftbvk has edited both here and at Commons. Basically, same gibberish user names and same lingering obsession with Oswald Spengler even when editing on entirely unrelated subjects. GMGtalk 14:33, 11 March 2019 (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]

16 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Another DUCK from en.quote. Picking right up where the other accounts left off. GMGtalk 15:38, 16 March 2019 (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]

All locked. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was quick! Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Kejnw added almost identical content to antinatalism as a previous sock added to Oswald Spengler in 2018. The sources and idiosyncratic formatting are also the same. Grayfell (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2020 (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]

01 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Their WP:OR at Heat death of the universe uses the same images made by Antichristos sock Attractor321. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 1 October 2020 (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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antichristos/Archive&oldid=1142568078"