Jump to content

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chris19910

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Chris19910

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Chris19910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bridwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Carol Sutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Their MOs seem to be the same, reverting edits of users randomly, claiming vandalism, or calling for speedy deletion when not warranted. See here and here. See here and here. Bridwater also seems to have a strange interest in awarding Chris19910 barnstars and Chris doesn't have a problem with Bridwater blanking his page. Although I have seen some legitimate editing, I see a lot of vandalism and edits that just don't make a lot of sense. I can't see how the use of both of these accounts is legitimate.

I don't have very much evidence that Carol Sutton is the same person besides the fact that they all started editiing around the same time the end of March 2008 and Chris19910 has adopted Carol Sutton here

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. Lara❤Love 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check user has determined that Chris19910 has been operating multiple accounts and a category has been set up at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chris19910. So far, User:Cookingexpert, User:Computermadgeek, User:Electricdancer and User:Topgearmad have been found to be his sockpuppets. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

don't have a problem with Bridwater clearing my page because I gave this user permission to do it in order to test their Twinkle see my usertalk page for conformation of this from the admin that blocked Bridwater for doing it. As for the user bridwater being a sockpuppet of 'mine'then that is absolute rubbish because I have no reason to create another account because my editing is going perfectly well. As for putting the speedy delete tags on the pages I believe that the pages needed it. Chris19910 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that Chris19910 noted that they permitted Bridwater to blank and revert the formers userpage (and by reverting Bridwater was reblanking as other editors had already performed that action, which lead to the AIV report and my block) which, I suggest, is a pretty useless way of hiding a sock from view. My review, and re-review, of the two editors contributions indicate very different ways of dealing with criticism and personal interaction (although I am aware that blanking pages is sometimes a method of not allowing similarities to be noted...) Lastly, I don't see any abuse within article space; no false consensus, to team tag editing, etc. The awarding of Barnstars...? My personal opinion is that while I believe that the two editors are not the same, there is no abuse to warrent CU in any place.
I have had no previous interaction with Carol Sutton, and my comments are from a review of their contribution history only. Firstly, this was the first of the three accounts to be created - my understanding is that the puppetmaster usually creates their "own" account first and then socks to support that account. Carol Sutton also appears to be a limited interest account, one specific sculptor and a few edits to that artistic genre. This is different to both other accounts, who seem to be vandal fighters and wikignomes (although not so succesful in Bridwaters case). The one aspect that Carol Sutton shares with Bridwater is a certain lack of clue in some areas, whereas Chris19910 appears quite knowledgeable.
My concluding opinion is that all three are sufficiently different in different ways (one will share a similarity with one, but not the other, in some cases) to be different individuals. I am also aware that it is very rare that puppetmasters and socks portray themselves as different genders, as the facade of the "wrong sex" is difficult to maintain, yet while Carol Sutton appears to identify as female and Bridwater and Chris19910 appear to be male. Other than the matter of Barnstars and adoption, I see no abuse that would justify a CU.
While I have advised Chris19910 that a checkuser can clear as well as condemn I have yet to have a reply, and I am aware that the editor has intimated elsewhere that they have a previous account which may give them reason for their ip identity not to be known.
Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the "fishy" nature of Chris19910 and Bridwater.

  • A simple stub article I created was tagged for Speedy Deletion (Andrea Parhamovich). He incorrectly tagged it as an attack page as it had nothing but legit edits ([1]) I challenged Chris19910 on it, and the user was evasive about answering. ([2])
    • It was aimed at a page that had been created by you not personally at you. Chris19910 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I cant remember what exactly was on the page because it has already been deleted Chris19910 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Under the terms of an attack page the content falls into that catagory im not going to argue about it. Chris19910 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed the 28th edit ever by Bridwater was giving Chris19910 two barnstars? ([3]) Extremely unusual behavior for a new user. Bridwater account was created March 31, and that 28th edit was on April 11.
  • He is supposedly a "former admin" according to this edit on April 1 ([4]) and is asking someone to reinstate his admin status. Seems particularly strange to me. The "right to vanish" is exactly that. You can't vanish but save your admin status, if he ever was an admin in the first place.

-- Fuzheado | Talk 00:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do have a previous identity on wikipedia which if needed will be disclosed for the case. This is why I am so familiar with the layout of wikipedia and how i know my way around. I had twinkle previously with no problems at all and over 10,000 successful edits without any queston of vandalism or of any objections to my speedy deletion tags. Chris19910 (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit to my talk page Computermadgeek revealed that hot20024, 200345, Rattus nonnus and Dmits are all also operated by Chris19901. As we know that Computermadgeek is Chris19901 I would expect that these are genuine socks. nancy (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Chris19910&oldid=1141878350"