Who is Cbrick77 (aka "Chris)?, Newbie joins the planning committee for Cirt/Jayen carnival Options

[Jagärdu]

Who is Cbrick77 (aka "Chris") and why is this newbie so interested in creating workshop proposals at the arbitration case between Cirt and Jayen? It certainly has Jayen perplexed and I can't imagine anyone is convinced by the protestations that this is his first account. So who the hell is he? A returned former admin or Arb who left the project with his tails between his legs? Another manifestation of ChrisO -- which would be funny for a number of reasons. Imagine ChrisO thinking to himself that signing his name "Chris" is like hiding in plain sight and therefore a wonderful disguise. I know there are people here who want to play this guessing game so let's hear it.

[Hipocrite]

John254/Kristen Eriksen?

[Jagärdu]

John254/Kristen Eriksen?

Now that wound be fun. It is also quite plausible. If it is true I really hope that he uses a second account to make contradicting proposals like he did last time.

[-DS-]

Wikistalk results

Hmmmmm.....

[Jagärdu]

Wikistalk results

Hmmmmm.....

So making a reverting vandalism edit at the Harlem Renaissance article is his call sign?

[Hipocrite]

Wikistalk results

Hmmmmm.....

So making a reverting vandalism edit at the Harlem Renaissance article is his call sign?

Yes, it is.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)

This post has been edited by Hipocrite:

[-DS-]

Wikistalk results

Hmmmmm.....

So making a reverting vandalism edit at the Harlem Renaissance article is his call sign?

Yes, it is.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)

You sure you didn't confuse that second diff with something else? I'm pretty sure Sophie wasn't Mr. John254.

[Hipocrite]

Wikistalk results

Hmmmmm.....

So making a reverting vandalism edit at the Harlem Renaissance article is his call sign?

Yes, it is.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)

You sure you didn't confuse that second diff with something else? I'm pretty sure Sophie wasn't Mr. John254.

I'll take that bet.

EDIT: On further research, I wouldn't take that bet. (ref http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29340&st=40)

This post has been edited by Hipocrite:

[Jagärdu]

Wikistalk results

Hmmmmm.....

So making a reverting vandalism edit at the Harlem Renaissance article is his call sign?

Yes, it is.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)

OK so who wants to bet on how long it will take the nitwits to figure it out? I say Cbrick is still amending his proposals come tomorrow morning.

[-DS-]

Wikistalk results

Hmmmmm.....

So making a reverting vandalism edit at the Harlem Renaissance article is his call sign?

Yes, it is.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)

OK so who wants to bet on how long it will take the nitwits to figure it out? I say Cbrick is still amending his proposals come tomorrow morning.

That depends. Roughly how long will it take for Coren or some other Arb to see this thread, block Chris and then claim all the credit while denying that he saw it on WR?

[Mathsci]

Wikistalk results

Hmmmmm.....

So making a reverting vandalism edit at the Harlem Renaissance article is his call sign?

Yes, it is.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)

OK so who wants to bet on how long it will take the nitwits to figure it out? I say Cbrick is still amending his proposals come tomorrow morning.

That depends. Roughly how long will it take for Coren or some other Arb to see this thread, block Chris and then claim all the credit while denying that he saw it on WR?

Risker ran a checkuser on Chester Markel on June 19. Would she not have picked up on any other socks at the time?

[tarantino]

Risker ran a checkuser on Chester Markel on June 19. Would she not have picked up on any other socks at the time?

If someone consistently uses different user agent strings and ISPs for each account, checkuser isn't going to find anything.

Mantanmoreland used to use long distance dial up accounts to make it appear his alternate accounts were editing from a different metropolitan area. It only takes one slip up to get caught, though.

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[Jagärdu]

Risker ran a checkuser on Chester Markel on June 19. Would she not have picked up on any other socks at the time?

If someone consistently uses different user agent strings and ISPs for each account, checkuser isn't going to find anything.

Mantanmoreland used to use long distance dial up accounts to make it appear his alternate accounts were editing from a different metropolitan area. It only takes one slip up to get caught, though.

Mathsci there is just too much circumstantial evidence here not to consider something of the nature that tarantino suggests. Cbrick did not edit often prior to this. Basically on a handful of days in prolonged sessions. It would be very easy not to have slipped up in such a scenario. Currently there is a hilarious conversation going on between Cbrick and Off2riorob on Cbrick's talk page. Cbrick apparently claims to be a 16 year old screen writer.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[No one of consequence]

Based on the circumstantial evidence alone, I would remove the workshop proposals from the case page and copy them to the user's talk page. Commenting in Arbitration really should be limited to "vested" editors -- not necessarily the parties only, but people with a demonstrated and reasonably long-term interest in Wikipedia. This account is too new and too specialized to be anything but a sock or a reincarnation.

[-DS-]

Risker ran a checkuser on Chester Markel on June 19. Would she not have picked up on any other socks at the time?

If someone consistently uses different user agent strings and ISPs for each account, checkuser isn't going to find anything.

I've found that different user agent strings alone are enough for a checkuser to deem a sock "unrelated". I once ran a sock on my home IP (the Wikipediots know the IP range), but CU deemed it unrelated to me because I used a different browser than usual.

[Mathsci]

Based on the circumstantial evidence alone, I would remove the workshop proposals from the case page and copy them to the user's talk page. Commenting in Arbitration really should be limited to "vested" editors -- not necessarily the parties only, but people with a demonstrated and reasonably long-term interest in Wikipedia. This account is too new and too specialized to be anything but a sock or a reincarnation.

I agree with that.

In the MMN case, when Chester Markel appeared to be too quick off the gun with his proposals, his responses made it even more evident that something fishy was going on.

[Jagärdu]

Wikistalk results

Hmmmmm.....

So making a reverting vandalism edit at the Harlem Renaissance article is his call sign?

Yes, it is.


(updating as I go through the puppets.)

OK so who wants to bet on how long it will take the nitwits to figure it out? I say Cbrick is still amending his proposals come tomorrow morning.

That depends. Roughly how long will it take for Coren or some other Arb to see this thread, block Chris and then claim all the credit while denying that he saw it on WR?

Well it's the morning and I don't see any moves to block the account or move his bogus proposals.

Based on the circumstantial evidence alone, I would remove the workshop proposals from the case page and copy them to the user's talk page. Commenting in Arbitration really should be limited to "vested" editors -- not necessarily the parties only, but people with a demonstrated and reasonably long-term interest in Wikipedia. This account is too new and too specialized to be anything but a sock or a reincarnation.

I'm not sure how the arbs and/or clerks don't get suspicious enough to at least check the edit history of an account that shows up out of the blue to make workshop proposals without any prior engagement with the issues being discussed. That alone should smell foul enough to get someone to investigate. But of course it's not like there are any sockmasters out there who love to make disruptive workshop proposals at arbitration ... I mean its not like there's a precedent to be suspicious ... right? What do you say John254?

[Mathsci]

Is it normal that a 16 year old would discuss a pornographic anime image?

First diff
Second diff

All the editing is a bit odd.

[Jagärdu]

Is it normal that a 16 year old would discuss a pornographic anime image?

First diff
Second diff

All the editing is a bit odd.

Quite clearly not the comments of a 16 year old, or the type of concern that a 16 year old would have. Once again it baffles the mind to consider how little concern anyone has really expressed about this on-wiki. You have to imagine that one of the arbs has stumbled upon this thread at this point.

Also note these two edits to the infamous Joel Anderson entry of Cirt's pufftastic political campaigning days. Hardly a coincidence.

Here's another topic that you expect a lot of 16 year olds to take interest in: labor induction.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[No one of consequence]

I've found that different user agent strings alone are enough for a checkuser to deem a sock "unrelated". I once ran a sock on my home IP (the Wikipediots know the IP range), but CU deemed it unrelated to me because I used a different browser than usual.

Either your ISP assigns a dynamic IP that changes frequently, or the person who ran the check needs a refresher course in basic methods.

[Jagärdu]

Any thoughts on Some Wiki Editor? No Harlem Renaissance edit but some odd overlap. One of the other socks reverted this account, can't remember where I saw it.

Or even better. Here's another editor claiming to be 16 years old who has significant overlap with known John254 socks: Kinaro - Wikistalk results

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[-DS-]

I've found that different user agent strings alone are enough for a checkuser to deem a sock "unrelated". I once ran a sock on my home IP (the Wikipediots know the IP range), but CU deemed it unrelated to me because I used a different browser than usual.

Either your ISP assigns a dynamic IP that changes frequently, or the person who ran the check needs a refresher course in basic methods.

Alas, my IPs change very rarely. I've only gone through four since I moved house.

I guess the second then.

(Oh, and you want to know the best part? That same CU is perfectly happy to block accounts as confirmed socks when they edit from anonymous proxies geolocating thousands of miles away from where I actually live)

EDIT: Also, a certain "Crotalus horridus" has noticed this discussion.

This post has been edited by -DS-:

[Jagärdu]

I've found that different user agent strings alone are enough for a checkuser to deem a sock "unrelated". I once ran a sock on my home IP (the Wikipediots know the IP range), but CU deemed it unrelated to me because I used a different browser than usual.

Either your ISP assigns a dynamic IP that changes frequently, or the person who ran the check needs a refresher course in basic methods.

Alas, my IPs change very rarely. I've only gone through four since I moved house.

I guess the second then.

(Oh, and you want to know the best part? That same CU is perfectly happy to block accounts as confirmed socks when they edit from anonymous proxies geolocating thousands of miles away from where I actually live)

EDIT: Also, a certain "Crotalus horridus" has noticed this discussion.

Now here's one for your Crotalus, checkusers and co. I started thinking why John only showed up at the Arbitration case and why not at the RfC. Now there were a few editors at the RfC whose presence was a bit strange, but it became clear to me after Prioryman was unmasked that they were all climate change buddies of ChrisO/Prioryman. But there was one other odd addition to the party, one Quigley. Here's how Quigley stacks up against known socks of John's. Wikistalk results. That's a serious amount of overlap if you ask me. Note that Quigley made several comments during the RfC that relayed an indepth knowledge of Cirt's past editing fueds going back well before Quigley started editing. Now clearly the overlap could just be coincidence, but why did Quigley know so much about Cirt's history? If not John I have a hard time imagining that he's not some other returned user or sock.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[-DS-]

"Chris" knows of this discussion.

[Mathsci]

"Chris" knows of this discussion.

Quite a party there.

[-DS-]

Hm.....

• John254
• Erik9
• Andrea105
• Cbrick77 (aka "Chris")

I see a pattern.

[Somey]

Hm.....

• John254
• Erik9
• Andrea105
• Cbrick77 (aka "Chris")

I see a pattern.

It's like a Fibonacci Sequence, only before Fibonacci actually took any upper-level math courses.

[Jagärdu]

Is Count Iblis serious with this crap? In the second link he suggests that Cbrick77 might in fact be Coren just because Coren is recused from the case. So failed joke or serious idiocy?

[Jagärdu]

Maybe NuclearWarfare cares to explain this very suspicious comment, in which he thanks Cbrick77 for the "heads up" after reading an email sent in about this situation. "Heads up?" Oh whatever did you mean NW?

Note:NW is a clerk for Arbcom, which is relevant because I haven't seen him relay any information to anyone about this "heads up" at AN/I or any other public discussion of the matter.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[InkBlot]

Maybe NuclearWarfare cares to explain this very suspicious comment, in which he thanks Cbrick77 for the "heads up" after reading an email sent in about this situation. "Heads up?" Oh whatever did you mean NW?

Note:NW is a clerk for Arbcom, which is relevant because I haven't seen him relay any information to anyone about this "heads up" at AN/I or any other public discussion of the matter.

1. CBrick77 sends him an email.
2. CBrick77 leaves a "You've got mail!" template on NW's talk page. A "heads up," if you will.
3. NW removes template, and thanks CBrick77 for pointing out on-wiki that he's sent him email.
4. Profit!!!

OK, maybe that last step doesn't necessarily follow...

[-DS-]

Black Kite, being helpful to all the sockpuppeteers out there by telling them how to increase their chances of getting their socks unblocked.

You know, maybe the guy isn't so bad after all.....

[Milton Roe]

Hm.....

• John254
• Erik9
• Andrea105
• Cbrick77 (aka "Chris")

I see a pattern.

Yeah, probably a lot of people using their banking login passwords as usernames. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Jagärdu]

John254/Kristen Eriksen?

And according to MuZemike Hipocrite lost the game. Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of "suspected socks" as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[No one of consequence]

Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of "suspected socks" as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

What I would really like to see is Hersfold being bold and removing Chris' workshop simply because it is not reasonable for any of the things he might be (honest newbie, good hand/bad hand, or reincarnation) to get involved in an Arbitration process in which he has no history editing the topic area under consideration and no history with the parties.

Certain arbitration cases used to attract lots of comment from a small handful of busybodies who had little at stake but felt the WP world was desperately in need of their wisdom, and cases were the worse for it. I think most of them have found other entertainments.

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Mathsci]

Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of "suspected socks" as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

What I would really like to see is Hersfold being bold and removing Chris' workshop simply because it is not reasonable for any of the things he might be (honest newbie, good hand/bad hand, or reincarnation) to get involved in an Arbitration process in which he has no history editing the topic area under consideration and no history with the parties.

Certain arbitration cases used to attract lots of comment from a small handful of busybodies who had little at stake but felt the WP world was desperately in need of their wisdom, and cases were the worse for it. I think most of them have found other entertainments.

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.

Hersfold has already removed part of Cla68's evidence that attempted to enlarge the scope of the Cirt-Jayen case.

Cbrick77 has told Off2riorob that he wishes to stay out of ArbCom related matters.

Apology

If that is indeed the case, perhaps an elder statesman like Thatcher can suggest as a follow-up that Cbrick77 could request that his evidence and workshop proposals be removed by a clerk.

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

[-DS-]

John254/Kristen Eriksen?

And according to MuZemike Hipocrite lost the game.

Bullshit. MuZemike is the most incompetent CU I have ever seen (and probably a sockpuppet himself, but that's not relevant right now). I wouldn't take any CU results from him at face value.

[No one of consequence]

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.

Hersfold has already removed part of Cla68's evidence that attempted to enlarge the scope of the Cirt-Jayen case.

Cbrick77 has told Off2riorob that he wishes to stay out of ArbCom related matters.

Apology

If that is indeed the case, perhaps an elder statesman like Thatcher can suggest as a follow-up that Cbrick77 could request that his evidence and workshop proposals be removed by a clerk.

I was always leery of people who would helicopter in to a situation and announce that they had the perfect solution because they were so much smarter than everyone else even though they had not been previously involved, so I'm trying not to go too far in that direction myself. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I'm not willing to invest the extra time needed to make a more strenuous intervention credible. I'm already spending too much time thinking about WP matters than is good for me, and I probably need to go back in my corner. I've already made my point here and on AN/I; enough people read those places that if they think my ideas on Amicus participation are worthy, they can follow up.

[Jagärdu]

Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of "suspected socks" as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

What I would really like to see is Hersfold being bold and removing Chris' workshop simply because it is not reasonable for any of the things he might be (honest newbie, good hand/bad hand, or reincarnation) to get involved in an Arbitration process in which he has no history editing the topic area under consideration and no history with the parties.

Certain arbitration cases used to attract lots of comment from a small handful of busybodies who had little at stake but felt the WP world was desperately in need of their wisdom, and cases were the worse for it. I think most of them have found other entertainments.

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.

Hersfold has already removed part of Cla68's evidence that attempted to enlarge the scope of the Cirt-Jayen case.

Cbrick77 has told Off2riorob that he wishes to stay out of ArbCom related matters.

Apology

If that is indeed the case, perhaps an elder statesman like Thatcher can suggest as a follow-up that Cbrick77 could request that his evidence and workshop proposals be removed by a clerk.

Looks like a job for the kind of person who would likes to do that kind of thing. Maybe such a person could, I don't know, drop a note on the appropriate case page, and follow up with not one, but two requests on the user's talk page to remove the contentious material from that case page. Mathsci do you have any leads on who we could ask to do such a job? Someone with experience no doubt, who is expressing concern about the matter. But where to look, where to look ...

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[Mathsci]

Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of "suspected socks" as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

What I would really like to see is Hersfold being bold and removing Chris' workshop simply because it is not reasonable for any of the things he might be (honest newbie, good hand/bad hand, or reincarnation) to get involved in an Arbitration process in which he has no history editing the topic area under consideration and no history with the parties.

Certain arbitration cases used to attract lots of comment from a small handful of busybodies who had little at stake but felt the WP world was desperately in need of their wisdom, and cases were the worse for it. I think most of them have found other entertainments.

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.

Hersfold has already removed part of Cla68's evidence that attempted to enlarge the scope of the Cirt-Jayen case.

Cbrick77 has told Off2riorob that he wishes to stay out of ArbCom related matters.

Apology

If that is indeed the case, perhaps an elder statesman like Thatcher can suggest as a follow-up that Cbrick77 could request that his evidence and workshop proposals be removed by a clerk.

Looks like a job for the kind of person who would likes to do that kind of thing. Maybe such a person could, I don't know, drop a note on the appropriate case page, and follow up with not one, but two requests on the user's talk page to remove the contentious material from that case page. Mathsci do you have any leads on who we could ask to do such a job? Someone with experience no doubt, who is expressing concern about the matter. But where to look, where to look ...

No idea.

[Jagärdu]

Any other suggestions? Though before moving on did CU results show that all other known John254 socks were "related" or did some come out "unrelated" but quacking so loud that it couldn't be anything else? I see a fair number of "suspected socks" as well. I can't imagine that this is anything but John, or at least someone clever enough to mimic some of his past behavior on purpose.

What I would really like to see is Hersfold being bold and removing Chris' workshop simply because it is not reasonable for any of the things he might be (honest newbie, good hand/bad hand, or reincarnation) to get involved in an Arbitration process in which he has no history editing the topic area under consideration and no history with the parties.

Certain arbitration cases used to attract lots of comment from a small handful of busybodies who had little at stake but felt the WP world was desperately in need of their wisdom, and cases were the worse for it. I think most of them have found other entertainments.

Courts have discretion to accept or ignore Amicus briefs, and generally do not accept them from people who have no demonstrable interest in the case other than wanting to be a busybody. Arbcom has no history of such a policy but they ought to seriously think about adopting it.

Whoever Cbrick77 is, he is not a credible participant, and his comments ought to be removed. Of course, there is no procedure, policy or rule for this, and a clerk who did it on his own would probably take it up the bum from at least one Arbitrator. Which is too bad.

Hersfold has already removed part of Cla68's evidence that attempted to enlarge the scope of the Cirt-Jayen case.

Cbrick77 has told Off2riorob that he wishes to stay out of ArbCom related matters.

Apology

If that is indeed the case, perhaps an elder statesman like Thatcher can suggest as a follow-up that Cbrick77 could request that his evidence and workshop proposals be removed by a clerk.

Looks like a job for the kind of person who would likes to do that kind of thing. Maybe such a person could, I don't know, drop a note on the appropriate case page, and follow up with not one, but two requests on the user's talk page to remove the contentious material from that case page. Mathsci do you have any leads on who we could ask to do such a job? Someone with experience no doubt, who is expressing concern about the matter. But where to look, where to look ...

No idea.

Well then hop to it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)