User talk:PeterSymonds

This is PeterSymonds's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to PeterSymonds.

M.O.V.E

Excuse me, but why did you delete the redirect M.o.v.e to make way for a move, despite the consensus name at the talk page being Move (Japanese band)? --Prosperosity (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it was an uncontroversial move request; the only reason Ryulong couldn't perform the move himself was because of a bot edit that got in the way. I don't have an opinion about the move. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Onelifefreak2007

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007/Archive

I would appreciate it, if you could take another look at this. Compare Razzinator (talk · contribs) with Razzfan (talk · contribs). Similar usernames, and both make unsourced changes to "Razzie" Awards pages. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there just isn't enough behavioural evidence for me to take any action here. I don't think this is a sock issue. The fact that similar usernames edit an article with a similar name and introduce unsourced edits over a year apart is not strong enough. I think this now needs to be addressed as a content issue; if the edits are problematic, feel free to bring them up on the applicable noticeboard. With a few fairly obvious differences in behaviour, I don't feel comfortable with labelling this user as a sockpuppet. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, User talk:Razzfan has been blocked repeatedly for that same behavior pattern. So you are correct, in that if it keeps up, the account will likely face escalating blocks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine if he's blocked; I'm not defending his behaviour, and I haven't particularly studied it. What I have studied are his behavioural patterns from a sockpuppet investigation point of view. I would just rather not see him blocked as a sockpuppet without sufficient evidence and, while convincing, there just isn't enough in my view. Another clerk may disagree before the case is archived. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The case has already been archived. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this? Same exact articles, similar usernames, same pattern of adding unsourced info, articles include List of Total Drama series characters and List of General Hospital cast members and Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress, etc. This is not simply coincidence. How can I appeal this sock investigation finding? Can you please have another look at the contribs of Razzinator (talk · contribs) with Razzfan (talk · contribs) ? -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Update - more evidence connecting Razzinator to Razzfan

Compare [1] with [2]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy SPI

I believe you closed the case prematurely. The new accusations are behaviorally based, not technically based, and the previous findings do not shed light on the behavior. I agree that a new CU check will not be helpful, but an experienced admin should review the behavioral suggestions and comment on their strength or weakness. Therefore, I reopened the case and put it into the non-CU section. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I'm well aware that checkuser is not the only form of evidence, and while my comment may not have been clear enough, I'm still not convinced that the behavioural evidence is adequate to suggest sockpuppetry. It was comprehensive but circumstantial at best. I read through everything before making my closing comment, and I'll read through it again, but I was not convinced. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you read it through and decide that the behavioral evidence is insufficient, please note that. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)