User talk:Richwales/Archives/2015-03

Questions

As one involved in SPIs, can you answer the following questions please.

1. If a checkuser spontaneously blocks a named account as a sock, with no SPI and no other discussion at all, should the blocked account be tagged as "confirmed" or as "suspected"?

2. Should a normal administrator (non-checkuser) blocking a named account ever tag it as "confirmed" when there has been no SPI and no checkuser involvement? 94.196.210.161 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Normally, calling an account a "confirmed" sockpuppet requires that the connection between the newly blocked account and an already-identified sockmaster has been confirmed by a Checkuser. (See Template:Sockpuppet.) As I understand the policies, a non-CU should not label an account as a "confirmed" sockpuppet unless a CU has confirmed this status.

Checkusers are not normally supposed to investigate accounts without probable cause (i.e., no "fishing expeditions"). The most common way a CU gets involved is via a request at WP:SPI; however, this is not the only way a CU can be pulled into an investigation. So the mere fact that a suspected sock was not reported in an SPI does not automatically mean people were breaking the rules. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rich

Hello Rich, I've asked user Sandstein to lift and cancel my TBAN by giving me a last chance but he declined. Is there any way I can have another last chance? Because of my TBAN I literally cannot edit most of the Georgian articles because of some marginal Armenian connections to those articles. What can I do? Can you please help if possible if there is any way for canceling my TBAN? Jaqeli 18:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jaqeli. I don't have the authority to do anything about your topic ban. An arbitration enforcement ban can be amended or overturned only at one of the forums listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and Modifications. Use the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template to format your appeal. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rich, I've appealed here on the enforcement page. Jaqeli 07:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Good luck. Please, please take this possible new chance very seriously. If some people respond to your appeal by saying you've already exhausted the community's patience and don't deserve any sympathy, don't argue with them — just hope there will be others who will speak up on your behalf. And whatever you do, if you do get unbanned, don't let yourself get into any more battles, or else I can confidently predict that you'll get completely and permanently banned. Good luck. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk needed

Hi Richwales, I am coming from this sockpuppet investigation related to Morisco article with a long record of heated debate (to put it mildly...), and an aggressive editor having it his own way, curiously enough supported by two others editors... It is a case of sockpuppeting as defined in WP:ILLEGIT, but the investigation is still open. Vanjagenije acted as a clerk, but surprisingly he did not reach a conclusion (intimidated? I do not know), he left it to some other clerk, as far as I understood. I am not impressed at all, that is why I come here. A Morisco article editor is getting away with it (clearly, don't need to scratch deep to see who it is, it is "on your face"), and the main initial suspect (subject to investigation) may not be most probably the sockmaster.

I do not know how you exactly proceed on your investigations, but in this case just checking IP address similarities, language used on the summary line, consistence in defended edit contents, timing/progress of ghostly newcomers to editing and the article's talk page, as well as a look at all the editors' talk page record should be enough. As far as I am concerned, it is clear who the sockmaster is. Do contact me or act if you can help me bringing this case to a satisfactory conclusion. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into this and weigh in on the SPI as I decide is appropriate. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I hope the weight of evidence prevails. I think all evidence required to get proper conclusion is there on the investigation. By the way, I gave up on the article. As far as I am concerned, it has been bulldozed and hijacked. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

After carefully reviewing this SPI, I concur in Vanjagenije's decision to close it without taking action against anyone. I did see recent evidence of edit warring — which is problematic in its own right — but I did not see any convincing evidence that one person was masquerading via multiple accounts. It is, of course, your decision whether or not to continue trying to work on this particular article, but in any case, I would encourage you to review the policies on edit warring (not OK even if you're convinced you're right and others are wrong) and vandalism (the recent edits to the Morisco article which were tagged as "reverting vandalism" in edit summaries — including one of your edits — did not, IMO, meet Wikipedia's narrow definition of vandalism). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

On "vandalism", it may not have been the most correct way to label it as per WP policies, Ok, but what you say is virtually an anecdote and technicality, since I was answering, rather reactively, to someone himself acting in such a manner in that he failed himself to engage in discussion or dispute resolution, one that was open by then (check by yourself the WP policies), the editor in question lost all control or ability to engage in community decision making, i.e. talking on the matter in the relevant section in order to see how to improve the article. Actually, he and others has taken possession of the article in all matters concerning content and even form as I have never seen before in my 7 years of WP.

On sockpuppeting, you must be judging on Carlstak, not on sockpuppeting. Sockpuppets are just there, in sight of everyone (Sidihmed, linked to Human Historian, who is their sockmaster?, plus ghostly IP addresses). WP:ILLEGIT applies, overwhelmingly. I will put it this way, we are not talking about this case, just about intelligence, sorry. You are the investigator, not a casual viewer, so let me show you this quickly: an IP (2.136.207.64) intervenes, a couple of days later another IP (2.137.191.198) with the same three initial digits edits in a similar action with the same language structure and way of reasoning, next day Sidihmed (backing up 2.137.191.198, same style same content affected, then IPs are barred and Sidihmed blocked, next 2.137.191.198 eventually is compelled in investigation and page semi-protection to show its real name (not dishonest? A, no?), Asilah1981. This is the editor profusely making serial edits in Morisco, almost freewheeling. Lastly, please do check his talk page, sorry, everything is clear. What do you want more, a self-confession? By the way, the victim of inaction in this respect, besides me, it has been Carlstak (not that I have any sympathies for him, to say just what is evident from the discussion page). Iñaki LL (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the above info. I'll take another look at the SPI issue when I have more time (hopefully within the next 24-48 hours).

With regard to the definition of "vandalism", the main reason I brought this up is that the policy on edit warring (WP:EW) grants an exemption for reverting obvious vandalism — but editing disruptively and in defiance of consensus, etc., is not considered vandalism (see WP:VANDAL), and repeatedly reverting this sort of editing could get you blocked (rightly or wrongly) for edit warring. In practice, it's probably better not to rely too heavily on the EW/3RR exemption for reverting vandalism. If there is any reasonable doubt at all over whether someone is trying to deface (vandalize) an article, is stubbornly pushing their own POV regardless of what anyone else thinks, or is simply engaged in a good-faith content dispute, it's almost always better to seek outside help (either via ordinary dispute resolution or by escalating the matter to the noticeboards), rather than having someone block you for EW and then having to argue that you shouldn't have been blocked because you were fighting vandalism. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I just acted once using the "vandal" label (reactively), and undid another edit just once also (reacting to another revert) once the debate had been established, after which Asilah1981 reverted mine and went on with his serial editing (9 in a row), straight down the motorway and no tolls. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just please don't misuse the "vandalism" label anymore in future. Aside from the EW/3RR question, it can be inflammatory to other users who may waste everyone's time taking offence to what they might see as unjustified name-calling. As for the Carlstak SPI, I've looked at it again, and I'm going to stand by my earlier conclusion that Carlstak does not appear to have been engaging in sockpuppetry here. If you believe the evidence shows someone else (not Carlstak) is socking, then you need to file a new SPI naming the appropriate suspected sockmaster. You (not the SPI clerks) have the responsibility to put forth a convincing case against the right accounts. I would, actually, strongly recommend you not file another SPI at all unless you can present really strong and convincing evidence; otherwise, you risk being sanctioned for making frivolous accusations. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, Iñaki LL , continuing with this line of reacting to all editors disagreeing with your combative POV-pushing by falsely accusing everyone in block of being sockpuppets is counterproductive for you. It is a main reason for which you have ended up being sidelined by a very productive RfC where a clear understanding and consensus was reached. I am surprised you are still continuing to pursue this avenue when it should have become clear to you that it is a dead end I am not very sure what help you are expecting from wales. In any case your behavior, logic, language and unwillingness or incapacity to coherently defend your edits were also largely to blame.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am done with you. You are a crystal-clear case for what I am concerned, your slander style does not work with me ("everyone is against you", etc.). Regardless of the outcome, you showed your true colours. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No more of this. See the WP:CIVIL quote at the top of my talk page. If you must trade accusations of bad faith, take it somewhere else. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Detail, specific criteria, and evidence, just with that I am fine. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, all I ask both of you is that, if you must discuss me personally, please do avoid using my actual username since I am automatically notified and would rather not know or be involved. :-) All the best, Asilah1981 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI evidence, which belongs in a case at WP:SPI, not here on my talk page

If this helps shed some more light, I add below some critical diffs I have noted myself after I started to intervene in this article. I should point out, however, that I joined the article on 23 February 2015, and have not tracked previous history that seems to add further enlightening information: Asilah1981 claimed he had "consistently used" one single IP. However, early IPs exist like 163.117.203.65 with almost identical explanations on the summary line as 2.137.191.198 / Asilah1981; note that he writes "spanish", like 2.137.191.198 / Asilah1981 in the Morisco talk (23:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)): "european", "iberian"). By the way, I should apologize for the incorrect citation of a sockpuppet name above, it is not Human Historian but Historian Student (as cited by Omar-toons as a sockpuppet of Asilah1981 in this diff). Names also are telling enough: sockpuppet "Sidihmed", looks just about the same as sidi Ahmed, Arabic for 'lord or sir Ahmed'. Asila1981 speaks Maroccoan Arabic, and a town named Asilah exists close to Tanger in Marocco. 2.136.207.64 [1], 08:30 18 February 2015 Edit summary: Non academic substandard source (as per wikipedia policy) 2.137.191.198 [2], 13:53 22 February 2015 Edit summary: as per source *2.137.191.198, later to be confessed as Asilah1981 by himself during investigation when the ID link was about to be unveiled 2.137.191.198 [3], 06:48 23 February 2015 Edit summary: Sidihmed [4], 06:19 24 February 2015 Edit summary: *Linked to sockpuppet Historian Student, another sockpuppet. Sidi Ahmed?, little doubt, of Arabic origin. Insists on 2.137.191.198 – Asilah’s claims (adding the sources on genetics). Sockmaster? Undisclosed. 2.137.191.198 [5], 08:00 24 February 2015 Edit summary: Deleting irrelevant section as per talk page *Last time Asilah1981 uses his 2.137 IP Asilah1981 [6], 12:51 24 February 2015 Edit summary: As per sources Asilah1981 Talk page [7], *Recent account (November 2014), but extremely good command of WP resources. Note allegations over previous accounts. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: Please don't use my talk page to present an SPI case. If you believe there is a convincing sockpuppetry case against Asilah1981, please file a proper investigation request in the proper place (i.e., at WP:SPI). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richwales, well, it was launched long ago with the name Carlstak (only initially a possible suspect), that was an investigation really as I see it, not a Yes Carlstak / No Carlstak kind of binary investigation. It is very frustrating for any long-running good editor that I should be spending so much time for a straightforward case, sorry I do not understand, from this first first-hand experience of mine, the SPI is becoming a dysfunctional procedure really, where the reporter and evidence provider gets punished really (time spent and all kind of obstacles). Two sockpuppets were blocked (Historian Student and Sidihmed) and nothing more was done (sockmaster?), Ok, it takes time... Then, in face of apparent sockpuppeting, I posted this Carlstak investigation, an investigation on the sockpuppeting case, where Carlstak may be cleared or not and another editor held responsible. However, as I understand on the final declaration of this case, "no sockpuppeting was found", which would really be worse actually, for the virtuality of it. Please check the detailed evidence, I wait for your response. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If you believe there is still unacknowledged sockpuppetry going on, you need to file a new SPI case under the user name of the account who you believe is the correct sockmaster. SPI isn't really set up to deal with "possible suspects" — the Carlstak SPI was closed because there was no credible evidence pointing to Carlstak as a sockmaster. You may not like this aspect of the SPI system, but that's how it works, and if you want your allegations to be listened to, you will need to follow the proper procedure. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, that formality may be the source of much of my headaches and that of others, since for what I can gather as a regular WP editor (who does not read all the small print) the SPI is an investigation to both determine if there is any at all and, if there is any, who is accountable regardless of who the initial suspect was. Almost from the beginning of the debate in Morisco talk I have pointed to Asilah1981, and Carlstak only as less probably so (that is on my comments). Now I would need to start anew another proceeding because the initial suspect was not the sockmaster, all over again the same tedious stuff. Looks dysfunctional to me, since now I have to decide on either persisting against blatant fraud (to the WP) or giving up out of boredom and let the suspect go (away with it). Iñaki LL (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Richwales/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tutelary (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)