Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nihil novi/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The editors show interest in many of the same articles,, making the same (flawed) points and are creating a WP:WALLEDGARDEN, Nihil novi restoring crawiki's edits (and vice versa) (, , , "see also"'s pointing to crawiki's Ideocracy), seamlessly support each others points (eventhough flatly contradicting MOS:SEEALSO, ) and frequently comment on each others talkpages (,. Walled garden articles include Ideocracy, Political midlife crisis, Political stagnation, Political fiction, State collapse and others. RWood128 is also a frequent contributor to the articles in the walled garden. Kleuske (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * I was working to improve edits, and if the editor who posted this complaint had looked more carefully he would have realized that (but we all tend to move too fast on the internet). See edits on State collapse and The Meaning of Hitler (book) (see Talk page, . At one time I was close to accusing User:Crawiki of edit warring. I have tried to improve edits made by this editor and help him. See, this very recent edit. .Rwood128 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, as far as I can see everyone is acting in good faith here; the problem seems to be User:Crawiki's excessive enthusiasm combined with lack of experience of editing on Wikipedia. Rwood128 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that editor Kleuske has been in conflict with Crawiki on the Ideocracy article . Rwood128 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Nihil novi and User: Rwood128 have been very helpful in pointing out my various errors and I am grateful. That is not evidence of a conspiracy. For my part I have never written on their talk pages as alleged. All communication is on the article's talk pages. It is alleged that we have backed up each other's 'flawed points'. Is there any specific evidence for this sweeping allegation? Please refer to talk pages on State collapse and The Meaning of Hitler (book) to see that, far from colluding, Rwood128 and I have often vehemently disagreed. Also please see talk pages for Genocide and Ethnic cleansing where I appealed for more editors to contribute to State collapse. Again, not what you'd expect to see if there were a garden walling conspiracy. Crawiki (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Crawiki appears to have begun contributing to Wikipedia about 22 August 2017, when he was welcomed on his talk page. About 3 weeks later, having noticed some of his contributions—which struck me as novel and useful—I inquired about them on his talk page.


 * I had immediately noticed (as reviewers of the present complaint against him also will, by consulting Crawiki's talk page) that Crawiki was untutored in Wiki-typesetting and text style (book titles in italics, article titles in quotation marks, etc.) and sought to help him learn these arca na by example, correcting some of these errors.


 * A number of other editors have also left him tips on Wiki content and format. They have generally done so in a friendly, welcoming manner.  An exception has been the present complainant, Kleuske, some of whose remarks on Crawiki's talk page Crawiki has accurately characterized as "ad hominem".


 * Kleuske has taken particular exception to Crawiki's having added "Ideocracy" to the "Authoritarian personality" see-also list. Crawiki's "Ideocracy" article makes reference to authoritarian personality; referring readers of the "Authoritarian personality" article to the "Ideocracy" article, therefore, does not seem unreasonable.


 * Today (6 December 2017) Kleuske has largely gutted Crawiki's "State collapse" article, in 7 serial, slashing cuts.


 * He has today also nominated Crawiki's article on "Power Politics (Wight book)" for deletion.


 * I think that Kleuske could have made a more useful contribution to Wikipedia by helping Crawiki learn Wikipedia's content criteria and format standards, as Rwood128 and others have been doing, and as I have been trying to do. It is easy to harass new contributors and to nominate articles for deletion.  It is harder to provide instruction and encouragement—as well as constructive critiques.  It took me many months to learn some of the Wikipedia basics, and I am still learning.


 * Respectfully,
 * Nihil novi (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * User: Nihil novi makes several good points. In my experience User: Kleuske frequently violates WP: rude and tends to make sweeping statements, not founded on any evidence. People in glass houses...Crawiki (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I cut sections that violate WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Kleuske (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that State collapse has been shorn of entire sections notably 'history of the concept', 'examples', and others. This done without any consultation or discussion.

I'm struggling to see how this improves the article, especially since similar articles such as Societal collapse and Economic collapse have similar structures. Does User: Kleuske intend to make similar cuts there on the basis of OR and SYNTH? Seems to be a lack of consistency if not. Go figure, as they say in the US Crawiki (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * While I heartily agree with Nihil novi, Crawiki's approach to editing can be exasperating–so I can also understand User: Kleuske's reaction. Rwood128 (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Rwood128 while it's true that your copy editing skills exceed mine, it has also been exasperating for me to put you right in matters of political definition. See numerous examples in the state collapse talk page. As far as SYNTH and OR, there was a lengthy and inconclusive discussion with User:PBS on 10th November. Again, a sweeping accusation and when as an inexperienced editor I asked for specifics, I got no reply. Crawiki (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the original-research stricture is not as clear-cut as some may assume. Certainly an encyclopedia (a repository of established knowledge) cannot welcome indiscriminate conceptualizing.  On the other hand, it is self-defeating to merely parrot (in altered phrasing, of course, to avoid "plagiarism") text from published secondary sources ("secondary source" itself being a relative term).
 * Where connections do legitimately exist between information from different sources, the trick is to make those connections clear.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Notifying editors of sock allegations is not required. However, in this instance, I am pinging, , and so they can respond to the allegations if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Folks, best of luck in resolving your content issues. I see no evidence of socking. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)