User talk:Richwales/Archives/2014-11

Mrm7171‎

Hi Richwales! I saw that you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171‎ - I haven't wanted to get too involved in that, but I think there is some solid evidence if it is presented correctly. Are you ok if I post an account? Or would you rather let it sit and see how things develop over time. I agree with you as things stand, but I think there's a good case to be made if it is gathered properly. - Bilby (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can articulate a straightforward case for Truthbringer1 being a sock of Mrm7171 — including diffs as needed to make it clear that this really is sockpuppetry and not just run-of-the-mill edit warring — then by all means go for it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take care of it later tonight - there's enough, I think, to make a good case, but it certainly wasn't offered in the SPI. - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've marked this SPI as open again. I also left a note on Truthbringer1's talk page, welcoming him/her to comment further, but advising him/her that any comments must be confined solely to the question of whether or not he/she is a sock of Mrm7171. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

appeal of SPI close on mrm

with regard to this this, sorry but how do i appeal? I am not experienced in fling SPIs and in this case the sock and his targets cluttered things up some. The behavioral evidence (down to using the same phrases) is really clear to me. Do I perhaps need to bring more difs and examples showing the behaviors? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reopened the Mrm7171 SPI case. Please feel free to add your observations to the page as you see fit; however, any comments need to be confined solely to the question of whether or not Truthbringer1 is a sockpuppet of Mrm7171. Yes, diffs showing specific similarities between the two accounts' editing would be extremely helpful — indeed, without such diffs, an SPI case is likely to be closed without any action being taken. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you! looks like bilby already supplied them. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Rich, I saw the goings-on at the SPI report on Art4em. I read what I could of Xxxartxxx's reply in his unblock request, do I have to address the criticism, personal attacks and calls for punishment, or would you recommend something else in this case? The user's talk page behavior in general has been very odd, and that's one of the reasons why I saw red-flags. CaroleHenson, completely independent of me and without any discussion between us both prior or during the user's editing, arrived at a COI suspicion of her own. (She's also someone I've rarely intersected with in article space.) The fact that Xxxartxxx quickly became rude, condescending and dominated most discussions with lengthy, often sarcastic diatribes, and often missed important points raised, suggested to me that there might be a COI.

The LG Williams article had been brought to AfD recently for failing to establish notability. Xxxartxxx pleaded with a number of users[1][2][3] to see through the agenda and defend the article, and I agreed that the nomination may have been made in bad faith, but when I casually mentioned to Xxxartxxx that it would be a good idea to beef up the notability claims to better avoid pernicious AfDs in the future, he got disproportionately defensive [4][5] and missed entirely the point I was making. When I tried to re-focus the discussion on establishing the subject's notability, the user started accusing me of becoming "a vandal's voice" and other nonsense, and became fixated with how he should improve the infobox, when the infobox had nothing to do with my main suggestion.[6]. Anyway, I could go on, but my main question, is: do I need to respond? Oh, and even though Xxxartxxx was blocked as a likely sock, none of us made any movements to delete the article. I brought that up in a discussion after the fact with Carole. I figure the artist is probably notable, we've just been relying on the wrong person to establish that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best thing for you to do is simply to ignore anything said to you by this indefinitely blocked user (via a sockpuppet account). As for whether the LG Williams article is notable or not, you should make that determination on your own, without regard one way or the other for anything Art4em / Xxxartxxx may have said. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babanwalia

Hi, Rich, just a friendly heads up about giving notice of an SPI (you commented about it at this SPI). As far as I know, notice has never been required. See, e.g., the instructions in October 2012 where it optional. That language is actually what I remember, and I personally have never notified users of SPI reports filed against them. In August 2013, AGK removed the notice option completely. In December 2013 it was restored briefly as a requirement by Nihonjoe. Ten minutes later, Legoktm reverted. My inference from all this is that "they" don't want notification, although many editors still do it. End of my research.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If there is in fact a feeling that notification shouldn't be required, I suppose it might be because some SPI's involve people who are likely to change their M.O. if they know right from the start that they are under investigation. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław

Hello Richwales, POLISH Oleola might also be his sockpuppetry. Or Thehoboclown. He is from Romania using multiple account, on Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Poland and even Russia. Look, for the Thehoboclown somebody previously opened a sockpuppet investigation but somehow he got away with. Because the last reported potential new user, KIENGIR was abandoned. Before, the previous reported case involving Thehoboclown, the same. Anarcham abandoned. Both were abandoned and Thehoboclown got away with. Another POLISH user is MattiR. Both KIENGIR and MattiR are linked via MATT. He might use fake ips though. I wanted to send this to DeltaQuad actually but he is not allowing me to post. I also sent this to Bbb23. Bye 88.198.80.92 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)