Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chris19910/Archive

Report date April 22 2010, 17:38 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

I feel that it is highly unusual for a users first edits to be reverting/removing vandalism, and feel it is quite similar to the above users behavior. Immunize (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Immunize (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Immunize (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

as this is. I'm also failing to see any real evidence of sockpuppetry here, and I don't find it unusual for a users first edits to be reverting vandalism (they could have been editing as an IP previously, and recent changes patrolling is quite often done by new users. Furthermore I would have thought they would be using twinkle by now if they were related to the above user). Still, I'll leave that up to the patrolling admin. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

You do not find that unusual? It would seem (to me anyway) that many new users would not even know about vandalism. Immunize (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My fourth edit was removing some vandalism. Within days of beginning editing, I was removing lots. Whose sockpuppet am I, then? New users will know about vandalism if they see it. Removing vandalism is an easy way for new users to contribute because it's an obvious way of improving an article. Agree with Spitfire re lack of evidence of sockpuppetry too. If it was a case of two users both inserting sneaky vandalism on the same type of articles while pretending to be combating vandalism, there might be something to go on. But saying "this new user's reverted vandalism, as has that new user, therefore there's sockpuppetry" is not a good line of argument. New users like this should be welcomed! BencherliteTalk 18:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)