Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz

Re: ]. What would constitute "conclusive behavioural evidence"? Why are opinions of editors who extensively interacted with Icewhiz (mine, VM's) disregarded? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's opinion is being disregarded. In fact, having evidence submitted by those who have interacted extensively with the alleged master definitely helps the investigation, and I would encourage you to keep sharing with us what you find. That said, we do have a fairly high standard for what is considered conclusive evidence, given that we don't want to inadvertently block someone completely unrelated if their edits aren't disruptive. At any rate, these accounts do appear to have stopped editing now, but I hope you will keep an eye on any future contributions and let us know if more conclusive patterns emerge. – bradv  🍁  16:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
Can an admin hat the discussion between 15:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC) and 10:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)? It's just unrelated to the report, and it's disruptive. MarioGom (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * . --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Archiving question
, shortly after RoySmith's CU determination (unrelated) in Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive, you archived the section. I'm not super-familiar with the SPI workflow, so I'm genuinely asking: were either RoySmith's CU determination or your archiving without comment meant to be an unstated rejection of the behavioral evidence? If so, could one of you please explain? If not, can this be unarchived until the behavioral evidence is evaluated? I'm ready to hear "your understanding of the process here is so poor that your questions don't even make sense" if that's what's really going on, in which case: sorry! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * was the one who closed the case stating that the account was unrelated. Typically clerks who archive are checking primarily that the case was properly closed, accounts tagged (if relevant), whether the case needs renaming, lock requests needed, etc. It is a clerical role that isn't really a determination on anything. However, I am willing to unarchive it and re-open that specific case entry and have now done so. please take a look when you can as your eyes were requested.  The SandDoctor  Talk 19:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the action and explanation. I thought to dig through RoySmith's edits to see what they'd done to close it (I get it now), and I came across a relevant comment from a user talk page, which I'll paste at the re-opened section. Thanks again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)