Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plant's Strider

Plant's Strider

Plant's Strider (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plant's Strider/Archive.

11 December 2023

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

Gene Stanley1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Running around removing reviews in infoboxes that user doesn't like. It looks like a duck to me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

"Removing reviews in infoboxes that user doesn't like"? Errr NO, I'm removing a source that has been considered unreliable by WP:MUSIC since 2022. I trust this nonsense "sockpuppet investigation" will be closed with immediate effect. I don't care for being harrassed while I work to the betterment of the encyclopedia. Cheers. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are unreliable for specific facts. (For example, you wouldn't cite the Daily Express for positive views on Nigel Farage) An opinion can only be "unreliably sourced" if it is believed to be untrue. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? WP:MUSIC agreed that Acclaimed Music isn't a reliable source. It's a guy in his house self-publishing his findings with no oversight. If the reviews in question exist, then reliable sources should be available. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STOP wilfully vandalising Wikipedia in an effort to "win". It has been clearly explained to you that Acclaimed Music is unreliable. You screwed up by starting this bogus "investigation" into someone who is just trying to help. I see your misbehaviour has already seen you blocked from the project multiple times. Let it go, for crying out loud. EDIT: I just looked at this "Plant's Strider" guy's account and he gave up editing 7-and-a-half years ago! It's evident (from looking at both Ritchie333 and Strider's interests) that this whole situation revolves around Pink Floyd albums. Quite clearly, I was just passing through Pink Floyd territory as I have been editing everyone whose articles use the unreliable source in question. By the way, multiple editors have taken the time to thank me for my efforts.[1] Gene Stanley1 (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While Acclaimed Music is indeed considered unreliable now, I'm not sure if manually (hopefully) removing it in hundreds of articles over 22 hours non-stop, leaving broken ref tags and spamming watchlists, is the way to go. Discussing it in the relevant wikiprojects and removing it with an actual bot would have been better. Personally, I have another concern. So what you are doing is a positive. But let's assume (it's the most likely scenario, really) nobody fixes it. Then, a year or two later, some other editor will go through these and delete all unsourced information, also a positive. But I believe the end result, losing an entire accolades section because nobody managed to fix it in a limited time frame, is a negative. I fixed a couple articles last month, and I'm slowly going through more articles now, but unfortunately I only have so much free time. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 16:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. All I was looking for is some further evidence eg: somebody suing Acclaimed Music or it being criticised for making things up or saying things that are factually incorrect. Perhaps another widely-advertised RfC with announcement that it would be taken off all articles (possibly via an approved bot) would have been the answer. All I want to know is why is it unreliable for a specific claim. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was hardly my intention to "spam" anyone. My goal was simply to remove a source that is "indeed considered unreliable". In return I've been accused of various malevolent behaviours. Nauseating. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked why you think it's unreliable for these specific articles, and have got no answer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did get an answer. Acclaimed Music is just some dude, self-publishing from his house with no oversight, who has correctly been deemed unreliable by the project. You or I could start a listicle site right now and claim to be a reliable source. Doesnt make it so. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but, for example, if an article said "User Ritchie333 thinks Atom Heart Mother is critically undervalued.<ref>some blog</ref>", you wouldn't just remove the reference and tag it with {{fact}}, would you? You'd just remove it wholesale. If my opinion on something isn't noteworthy to appear in an encyclopedia, it shouldn't appear anywhere at all, full stop. I think that is where the root cause of this confusion comes from. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Acclaimed Music guy wasn't formally ruled out as a source until last year. Wiki seemed to think, once upon a time, that he had at least a smidgen of credibility, so the lists might or may not be out there, I dunno. Leaving the entries be and tagging them with requests for new sources allows people to dig out some proper referencing, if it exists. I *did* completely remove all "Acclaimed Music ranks x the 243th-most acclaimed album" type content. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333 made a mistake. Can't we do a reverse "DUCK" on this one and say that I am clearly not some guy who was causing problems on Wikipedia over a decade ago and who hasn't even been around for 7.5 years? All of my edits are in good faith. Please close this nonsense "investigation". Gene Stanley1 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Ritchie333 A duck to which account in the archives or elsewhere? Izno (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything clear cut myself. Per User talk:Ritchie333#New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus, the reporter thinks this is probably stale, so I'll close the request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]