Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChrisRCentral/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ChrisRCentral

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

09 February 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


A discussion is initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways on 30 January 2021. Within three hours User:ChrisRCentral, made the first of 20 edits. Within one hour User:Slidesauce appears as a new user and makes the first of six edits. As a number of editors have noted, the appearance of multiple WP:SPAs does appear to be unusual, particularly given that both have passionately pleaded the same case, yet have made only one other contribution between them. Wickmour (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

So in my defense, I will ask you to check the IP of my account, check the IP of Slidesauce's account and then compare to see we have logged into each other's account. Before saying it is a VPN, I have accidentally left it on before and it said that I can't post anything, so it rules that option out. Apart from being passionate about the subject of UK trains, there's not really any other evidence to say that my account is a sock puppet apart from the editing pattern. I feel a lot of people don't like the option I picked and my justifications behind it in WP:UKRAIL and that I cited counter evidence against specific positions and this just feels like an attack on my character, rather than my position in that discussion. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the Editor Interaction Analyser (you can find it above in the tools section -Editor interaction utility) the minimum time between edits is 1 minute. The tools states that " In general, when two users edit a page within a short time, chances are high that they have interacted directly with one another on that page." raising suspicion that your are connected to the user that is Suspected as being a sockpuppet. You can also see the page by following this link[1]. If there are no objections I recommend that a Checkuser is performed to find out if the 2 accounts are linked. E.Wright1852 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it E.Wright1852. I have nothing to hide and am a legitimate user with only one account. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to draw attention to the timing that the accounts were created.
The Slidesause account was created at 06:38 31.01.21, which is only 3 minutes after ChrisRCentral's first set of edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways (06:35). A further 35 minutes later, at 07:13, Slidesause made his/her first edit on the same page.
The ChrisRCentral account was created at 21:49 30.01.21. His/her first edit, the reverting of an image vandalism, was conducted at 21:51 on Talk:British Rail Class 222. On this page, a strange sequence of events had occurred. At 21:34, 2a02:c7f:7c23:bc00:35d6:8771:aaac:f715 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a "semi-protected edit request". Just 8 minutes later, at 21:42, 92.13.9.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a comment supporting it, at the same time reverting an image vandalism. This was 7 minutes before the account creation.
The short gaps, especially at Talk:British Rail Class 222, are intriguing. An IP user or a newly-registered user cannot take advantage of the watchlist function; therefore it is almost impossible for them to notice a new discussion within such a short time. I see the person behind this to be someone experienced in utilising multiple connections. The checkuser may not be able to find a direct link between the two accounts, but I'd like to know the relation with the two IPs for each of the accounts to be disclosed also.--YTRK (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok YTRK, so let me digest this - For one, coincidences do happen. I'm yet to see any solid, hard proof that this is sockpuppetry. Just because Slidesauce created his/her/their account after 3 minutes, doesn't prove anything; I understand it could look suspicious, but it's not proof. Also, I just thought I would do my bit for the community and remove the vandalism after that IP address decided to vandalise the page, to which I would like to state, my ISP does not support IPv6 so it is physically impossible for me to have an IPv6 address. From the last line in your statement, it sounds like you wouldn't be happy with the result unless it was found I was a sockpuppet and I don't think that's fair in the slightest. Unless you can provide hard proof that I have had all of these IP addresses, you can't state that there is a link between them, because it hasn't been and can't be proven. When it comes out that I'm not a sockpuppet, I'd like to refer you to WP:BITE as you, and others have been very hostile and it will alienate new users. I've already agreed to have checkuser used on my account, so by all means, use it and check. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, coincidences do happen. However, the more "coincidences" happen, the less likely it becomes that they are real coincidences. Allow me to ask you something: how did you get to Talk:British Rail Class 222?--YTRK (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here YTRK, but just like how you get to any wiki page, Google it and then click on the link... Bearing in mind, I work in the rail industry and have a passion for it, so of course I'm going to be active around certain pages, specifically WP:UKRAIL ones that cause controversy. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have. Talk pages aren't directly accessible through Google. That aside, what I wanted to know was the process in which you thought you'd go there, so thank you for answering.
On a side note, 2A02:C7F:7C23:BC00:ADC8:5541:4CB1:6D6B who has commented below in defence of ChrisRCentral belongs to the same range as the IPv6 address I mentioned earlier. Another coincidence?--YTRK (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisRCentral, could you please answer this question also? Is 92.13.9.126, who commented on Talk:British Rail Class 222, you? You hadn't mentioned anything about the IPv4 address, but I noticed I hadn't asked either.--YTRK (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty to do a WHOIS lookup on the IPv6 address - It comes back as being a completely different ISP and a different location to where I am [1] . As I mentioned to E.Wright1852, you should probably stop making assumptions. Let me clarify myself. The Class 222 page has been a highly controversial one in the community due to a major (it might not seem it in length, but is in terms of purpose) change to the article which had been untouched for over a decade. I went to go look at the page to see what the problem was and actually made a change to rectify it back to what it was (there's no citation for it being called a Voyager), to which there was a back and forth until the article was locked. I saw that an unregistered user had made a request to change the article (I didn't know how to initiate a protected change request), so I put my support on it as I thought it was a good idea (yes, that does mean that 92.13.9.126 is me; I had forgotten that I actually contributed to the page seeing as the discussion was quite heated on WP:UKRAIL).
I decided after that I would make an account as I wanted to be able to make more edits that could help improve the community and for the public (see all of my responses in WP:UKRAIL talk page). With that being known, plus another IP address of mine being known on the WP:UKRAIL talk page, I've done a WHOIS lookup on both. 92.13.9.126 comes back as [2] and the other IP address I have admitted to (92.13.14.227), comes back as [3]. Both the same location, ISP and IP range. As I've mentioned to E.Wright1852, all the evidence you have are assumptions which are not proof and frankly go against guidelines for new editors (see WP:BITE). Thankfully, E.Wright1852 has apologised and I've thanked them for that as it hasn't been proven.
Every edit I've made that I state as fact, has been backed up with a citation and I never claim that my own opinions are fact. I have not made any destructive or silly edits and I've contributed to a discussion and played a part in the community. At this rate, I have to ask the question - you seem so hung up in trying to "prove" I'm a sockpuppet and the fact you were quite hostile in your responses compared to everyone else on WP:UKRAIL, are you actually doing this because you believe I'm a sockpuppet, or are you doing this just because you don't like my opinions? --ChrisRCentral (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Thank you for the clarification about the IP address.
  2. The "coincidences" left now are as follows. Two of them, though, only imply the potential existence of another set of IPs, instead of linking the two accounts directly.
    • the comment at Talk:British Rail Class 222 comment within 8 minutes of the start of the discussion
    • the Slidesauce account creation time and the short intervals at the Project talk page, two thirds of which were 38 minutes or less
    • the comment on this very page
  3. The 150 km separation I had noted, but they are apparently not 100% accurate. (see [4] for example)
  4. The only "assumption" I have made is the last paragraph of my first comment. Others are all solid fact.
  5. Other than for the purposes of comparing the defendants with each other, the quality of one's edits does not matter here.
  6. I merely pointed out what I found through a cursory look through the related histories. I asked you two questions, but that was part of the reply to your comments. To call that "so hung up in trying to "prove" I'm a sockpuppet" would, in my opinion, be quite an overstatement.
  7. I have no idea what you mean by me being "hostile". Or is that perhaps the fact that I refuted your reply to my comment? I'd like to point out that you made a comment starting with "I'm pretty fed up of having to justify myself again and again when people haven't read my comments properly.", when in fact it was you who had been misunderstanding my comments. (And you have so far ignored my reply pointing that out.) If my replies were "hostile" what would that be?
  8. The answer to your question is the former, if you are referring to the content; and the credo of responding to all replies, if you are referring to the fact that I stuck around.
Apologies for the message being quite disorganized. And just to clarify, I won't be objecting to having this discussion closed.--YTRK (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Fixed--YTRK (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YTRK, I apologise if it seemed my statement was hyperbolic, but please put yourself in my shoes. I'm a new editor wanting to make a difference to the community and within a couple of days of me making an account and giving my opinion to help, I've had a sockpuppet allegation made against me and been called a WP:SPA (I do just have an interest in the UK railway!). It can come across as hostile, hence my stern replies. In an effort to bring this to a close now we've had CU evidence, I'll answer your following questions:
  • I'm not sure what you're asking here, can you elaborate?
  • As I've mentioned above and can be seen from the CU evidence, I honestly don't know, I don't own the Slidesauce account.
  • The comment under here, again, I have no idea. The sockpuppet investiagtion list is open to the public and I've already done a WHOIS on it. I agree WHOIS isn't exactly accurate, but I don't believe it is 150km inaccurate, considering I've confirmed the details of the WHOIS report as correct on my end. I genuinely can't give you an answer other than that.
Hopefully that's everything - if you can elaborate on what you're asking with the Talk:British Rail Class 222, I'll answer that. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first time I mentioned the possibility of single purpose accounts was last Monday, in the status update section, so please bear that in mind.
I'm assuming that your bulleted comments correspond to my list of coincidences; it's my fault that I didn't make it clear, but they were chiefly intended for those who would be making the decisions. You say they're coincidences, I think the possibility is too narrow; I hardly believe we'll be able to agree on it.
As for your point about the distance though, the largest deviation shown on the website I indicated (it lists the estimated locations from different services) was over 180 km for the Northampton one. Thus, I don't think it is so far fetched.--YTRK (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YTRK, from the discussion we've had above, I can safely say that I'm never going to give you the answer you want to hear. I've apologised for my comments being a bit hyperbolic and I've answered all the questions you've asked with the truth and to the best of my ability. I've even taken the liberty of running WHOIS on my own IP addresses and the CU evidence has come back as unlikely. I don't think me answering any other questions or continually justifying myself is going to do any help whatsoever. Therefore, I have nothing more to say on the matter. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting a checkuser on the basis, the accounts have raised suspicion of several editors. The editing patterns do seem odd especially these 2.[2][3] The 2 edits I have linked have ChrisRCentral editing the format of Slidesauce's edit mere minutes after the edit was made, one of them being 1 minute after. There are several edits in the discussion that have bad formats but why edit Slidesauce's edit and not others? E.Wright1852 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So E.Wright1852, you've used two edits that are very minor and don't actually change the conversation in any way - I refreshed the page fairly frequently when the talk page was active (I don't hang about when talking to people) and did a quick skim down the page. As these comments stood out massively for not being indented when you could see that they were in reply to someone, I added the indents. I've also fixed the formatting for other people too if you have a look through all the edits. Does that mean they are sockpuppets too because I've fixed their formatting on the page? If it was a whole paragraph of reply after 1 minute, I'd be inclined to agree with your suspicion, but it's not; It's adding a colon to the start of a couple of lines. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to look at it this way, you wrote a paragraph between 16:07 and 16:26 making some edits here and there to your paragraph, 4 minutes later Slidesauce adds a paragraph at 16:30-16:31 to which you then change the format of 1 minute later. This all happened on the 31 January 2021. E.Wright1852 (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All you've done is just rewritten your original claim to which I've responded to, but made it out like I'm guilty before you can prove that I own the Slidesauce account. To be clear: I do not own the Slidesauce account. However he/she/they decide to contribute is up to them and has nothing to do with me. As I've said before, I refreshed the page quite frequently as I was invested in the conversation as I work in the industry and have a passion for the railways, hence my quick edits. I think rather than making it out like I'm guilty, you should be looking for solid proof that I'm guilty, rather than clutching at straws over a minor edit I made to add an indent to someone's response. Quoting you from the WP:UKRAIL talk page, "Single purpose accounts are definitely being used in this discussion." [4], which means you are already biased before you've even started the investigation. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must say it is disappointing to see that this is the 'welcome' new Wikipedia editors get for having a differing opinion. Is a user with a new account supposed to make a certain number of edits across a number of topics before sharing their opinion? I struggle to see the issue with two users appearing at a similar time to give their input on a 'controversial' topic for WP:UKRAIL, and if this is the treatment new people get, I can see more accounts being left as WP:SPA. At this point the accusations appear more as a personal attack on ChrisRCentral for their opinion, rather than a legitimate concern. 2A02:C7F:7C23:BC00:ADC8:5541:4CB1:6D6B (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise as I had no idea what the M meant. As for my comment about single purpose accounts though "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose.". We have to treat single purpose accounts as suspicous because "while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed." If I do come across as agressive or rude I do apologize, I in no way mean this to be a personal attack. Your view points are completely valid and if the Checkuser comes back negative your and Slidesauce's vote will be fully valid. As for my statements about the formating I fully retract them as it was my fault I didn't know what the M was for. E.Wright1852 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the apology and thank you for saying that. Everyone makes mistakes, but I would just ask to please think twice before saying that something is "definitely" the case before it has even been proven. As I mentioned above, I was very open to having a checkuser run on me because I don't have anything to hide. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely think twice in the future. E.Wright1852 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear as to the statements I have retracted I have put a line through them. I have also removed my post on WP:UKRAIL about single purpose accounts as it was not definite and also was not proven. E.Wright1852 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisRCentral I'm happy to see that the Checkuser has come back as unlikely. I would again like to apologise. As for the discussion at WP:UKRAIL hopefully a consensus will be reached very soon. YTRK I do understand your points about 2A02:C7F:7C23:BC00:ADC8:5541:4CB1:6D6B and 2a02:c7f:7c23:bc00:35d6:8771:aaac:f715. Yes they possibly are connected to eachother however the ip's that ChrisRCentral has said to have edited as come back as a completely different location to them meaning that there is no possible way for them to be connected. As for this investigation it can now be closed by a Clerk and/or patrolling admin. E.Wright1852 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you E.Wright1852. Hopefully now we can get back to having a good, constructive discussion on WP:UKRAIL! :) --ChrisRCentral (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=ChrisRCentral&users=ChrisRCentral&users=Slidesauce
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways&diff=prev&oldid=1003983591
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways&diff=prev&oldid=1004241104
  4. ^ Single purpose accounts are definitely being used in this discussion. E.Wright1852 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Closing without action, everything seems resolved here. I'm wondering if this discussion was listed on some sort of off-wiki rail enthusiast forum, which would explain the influx of multiple accounts. Regardless, nothing shady here. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChrisRCentral/Archive&oldid=1011858246"