Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vanished user 03/Archive

23 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Vanished user 03 is a user (fka User:ChrisO) who supposedly exercised his RTV, and was subsequently indef blocked, see. Shortly thereafter, User:Prioryman was registered. Prioryman is clearly not a new account - their first edit ever to wikipedia included perfectly formatted shorthand references (e.g: ), use of conversion templates 6.7 m and 41.0229°N, 28.9749°W, and other telltale signs of a user who's been at it for a while.

These two users show a surprisingly long list of commonly edited articles - more than 50 in mainspace alone:, including such odd, infrequently edited ones as 1928 Thames flood (less than 50 edits over nearly 4 years between VU03's last edit and Prioryman's first) or Greek National Road 3 ( 11 total edits over a year and a half between VU03's last edit and Prioryman's first). Prioryman's user page has an impressive collection of icons representing articles he has gotten to DYK, GA or FA status - including, curiously , one for Crushing by elephant, an article he has never edited, but which ChrisO wrote, got to FA status, and featured proudly on his user page before exercising his RTV. Same goes for for Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, and the same for Good article Quneitra.

Their attitudes toward other editors are also consistent: Both display antagonism toward user:Cla68, , or camaraderie with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. There's plenty more, I don't have the time to document it all, but will provide more examples if needed.

To pre-empt any claims that this is a clean start, I'll restate that per teh WP:CLEANSTART policy, 'A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions in place against the old account.', which is the case here, and is not permitted after a RTV has been exercised. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Prioryman's irregularities with RtV has been documented in an ArbCom case here. As far as I know, WP's administration, including ArbCom, has yet to settle the issue. Cla68 (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has declined to act on it so far, I think because at least one of them was involved in helping create the situation. It probably needs to be pursued through the community dispute resolution process.  By the way, did someone notify Prioryman of this discussion? Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever situation was created; if!—would have been properly created in accordance with policy. The evidence presented to open this case is contrary to the purpose of collegial editing where editors equally enjoy an assumption of good faith. I see nothing that justifies the bad faith intrusion upon Prioryman. I interacted with ChrisO sufficiently enough that I affirm there is no resemblance in account operation. Either Prioryman is the user formerly known as ChrisO, in which case he has done a superb job of presenting a different persona, and no suspicious grounds exist to allege otherwise. Or, and what I believe, they are not operated by the same person. I can accept either, because there is no conduct that equivocates "socking", which is a required element for an SPI. I suggest this case be expeditiously closed. - My76Strat (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen, I'm logged-in. ArbCom screwed up with the ChrisO/Prioryman situation, because it showed that different rules apply to different editors.  If a newbie editor, rather than an established hand from the UK, had abused RtV like that, it would have been a different result.  Nothing personal, but you guys could have been a little more consistent in this case, perhaps because you thought it wouldn't be discovered because you didn't expect your emails to get leaked. Cla68 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Crat Avi mentioned here the concept of "a privacy rename under ArbCom's auspices, whilst not never exercising RtV." It was the first I'd heard of such a notion, and although I've raised many questions publicly and privately about this notion, I've not received an answer, and I've been heckled for continuing to ask.  It's unclear to me if the arbs are being consistent or not, but what is clear is that there is some confusion and answers aren't forthcoming. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do wish people wouldn't constantly, automatically, assume that Arbcom are trying to conceal who really shot JFK. For the record, it occasionally happens that someone wants to retire an account because they are (and provide evidence that they are) being subject to real life stalking, harassment or etc. In such a case, sometimes someone thinks it's a good idea to rename the old account, to make it harder to find. It's not the same as RTV, but the account rename process is the same as that used in RTV. However, there is a clear understanding that the user will continue editing, so it's not socking if they do. Now obviously if the user does create another account, they take their chances as to whether someone will recognise them, as there's not a lot anyone can do if someone does. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is case is a little different, Elen. The editor in question not only kept editing with different accounts which were created concurrently, but lied about previous involvement in a couple of topic areas.  ArbCom did nothing after being made aware of it.  Would a newbie, on non-UK based established editor, have gotten away with the same behavior?  Cla68 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
All of the edits from the previous account are. I think this case is probably best referred to Arbcom -questions of RTV would seem to be outside our scope here. TN X Man 14:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The ChrisO account was retired due to real life issues linked to the username. The individual behind the account was allowed to create a new account in an attempt to prevent further instances of same. For this to be effective, it relies on the editor not doing anything that would link the two accounts. So there is no issue about "socking" - the new account is allowed to edit.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh bullshit. The only issue was that he was getting in trouble with the original account and wanted to try to continue his merry way with another.  You're not a stupid woman, Elen, so it leaves me at a complete loss why you insist on acting like one.  AGF is not a suicide pact.101.118.45.190 (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And whose sock are you? Do me the courtesy of logging in to cuss me out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Marking for close. I don't see any reason for further discussion on this page -grievances, complaints, and general name calling about Arbcom should be posted elsewhere. TN X Man 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)