Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StillStanding-247/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | StillStanding-247

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 10:47, 19 February 2015 (Substing templates: {{unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


StillStanding-247

07 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


On September 18, user StillStanding-247 added “conservative” to description in first sentence of Americans for Prosperity page [1]. He was reverted and soon after that, a brand new account (Sally Season) made its first ever edit that happened to be identical to StillStanding’s edit [2]. Sally Season’s next edits were on You didn’t build that and Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund which StillStanding was editing a few days earlier. The times in which Sally Season has edited have never overlapped with the times that StillStanding has edited. Sally Season’s edits and comments on talk page are very similar to StillStanding’s and Sally Season has displayed battleground mentality on talk pages [3] [4], which was one of the reasons for StillStanding’s recent block. Since StillStanding was blocked, Sally Season has increased their activity, all on pages in which StillStanding had previously been active. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the behavioral evidence enough to assume these accounts are being controlled by the same user? On the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund page, StillStanding made this edit, and then stopped editing after that (it looked like he was involved an edit war over that specific edit). Later, Sally Season came in and made edits to that exact same paragraph, and on the talk page StillStanding defended those edits by Sally. And the times when Sally Season edited the article and the talk page, StillStanding was not editing. Seems tough to call it coincidence. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD has the tools, we don't.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the procedure is to add a new one to the list but I believe there is behavioral evidence suggesting that this IP address 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEAE:652F could be the same user behind Sally Season. Since the SPI started, Sally Season hasn't made any more edits, but that IP picked up right where he/she left off. Sally made this edit on the 6th, Arzel removed one of the sources for being unreliable, then this new IP came in and reverted Arzel. Also, Sally Season was edit warring over this on the David Koch page. I had moved the sentence to the Political activities of the Koch brothers page since it was about political activity of both brothers and fit there more appropriately. When another user removed the part about Prop 23, this IP came in and added it back. The other few pages this IP has worked on fit with the MO of StillStanding. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this proves anything either way, but StillStanding's previous IP was based in the USA, while the IP listed above supposedly emanates from the UK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I know it's not indisputable. Just seeing if the Duck test applies here and if it's a strong enough case. It's very possible that someone could purposefully change IP's, especially if they know they will be under suspicion due to a recent block. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough information to form an opinion on Sally Season, but I have strong reason to believe the IP attributed to StillStanding-247 is not where they actually reside. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received a note telling me about this page. Please remove my name from this report. I am not related to any of the named parties here, and I am not a puppet of anyone. As noted below, I do edit from my university, although not from a library, but maybe these are on the same network. Thanks ever so much for publishing that fact. Will I soon see my name, address and classes listed here next? Last week was not my first ever edit. I have been editing off and on for many months, as you probably know since you know where I am, but I needed to register an account to edit certain restricted articles. There is no "coincidence" about my editing articles related to each other, I just used the tools in the left margin to see if equally erroneous edits were being made elsewhere.Sally Season (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Comment I'm no expert on sockpuppets, but I agree with the case opener that the editing style of both editors shows a similar battleground attitude.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and endorse a CU. I really do hope it comes back negative. Sædontalk 03:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Sufficiently unrelated to make it unlikely they are the same user - or would the duck test still be applicable? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have blocked the IPv6 as it's editing from a webhost. It created an account UKrOGERS (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who I have identified as Marlin1975 - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marlin1975/Archive. For the time being I have indeffed both Marlin1975 and the sock, on the grounds that there has been previous socking. If this is an attempt at a WP:CLEANSTART he needs to go about it differently.

Since this isn't the first time that Marlin1975 socks have been identified as StillStanding, I am inclined to believe they are more closely related than was at first believed. Sally Season is editing out of a university library and impossible to tie up with the CU tool and seems at first sight unlikely to be related to StillStanding. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

(Please note, the IP was not used for socking, but it is mentioned in the evidence.)

Here's the History (i.e. TLDR of cherry picked diffs)
  • April 27, 2010 — User: Kerfuffler creates an account and makes their first edit, and 12 11 additional edits over the next 2 years.
  • June 1, 2012 — Anonymous User:24.45.42.125 begins editing various social/political/philosopical articles. By their 14th lifetime edit they're using Wiki-lingo like "drive-by tagging". [5] By the 18th edit they're starting new sections on talk pages. They become heavily involved in articles like Political positions of Mitt Romney, Christian right, Focus on the Family, and have been reported to AN3. [6] I found this last edit to their old talk page to be particularly interesting, and it was one of the reasons I kept my eye on the user. I liked the amount of "spunk" they showed as an IP editor.
  • July 22, 2012 — User:Still-24-45-42-125 creates an account with their IP address in the account name, announcing this on their new user page and their old IP. [7] [8]
  • August 1, 2012 — Still-24-45-42-125 is blocked for edit warring. AN3 archive They have remained highly involved in political articles, following (or creating) the latest controversy. Mitt Romney, Chick-fil-A ([9]), Focus on the Family, and Social conservatism are still common themes. They are also active on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard.
  • August 17, 2012 — User:Still-24-45-42-125 moves to User:StillStanding-247. [10] after discovering that IP addresses can be traced to geographic location. (ANI thread here) They remain a regular presence at the various noticeboards, and become involved at Paul Ryan.
  • August 23, 2012 — A banned user posts some falsified information about a Wikiproject Conservatism IRC channel on Still's talk page, [11] starting a long string of drama there that doesn't end until the 28th. (AN archive)
  • September 3, 2012 — Kerfuffler becomes active, making a string of edits to Ustream, its associated talk page, and articles about computers.
  • September 5, 2012 — Kerfuffler has edited Chick-fil-A and Paul Ryan, and are heavily involved in a NPOV/noticeboard discussion about Paul Ryan's speech. StillStanding is also highly involved in the thread, and Kerfuffler supports Still's positions. "I concur completely with StillStanding"
  • September 5, 2012 — A user "outs" StillStanding by making an offhand reference to the state where Still's IP geolocates. Still reverts the edit several times, creating a Streisand effect and culminating in this AN/I thread that convinced Still that he would be blocked. [12]
  • September 5-11, 2012 — Users (including myself) make inquiries on Kerfufflers's talk page about alternate accounts. [13] Red flags include diving into edit wars and controversial topics, and an advanced knowledge of a wide range of Wikipedia policies. Kerfuffler denied having used any other accounts, but was evasive when pressed on how he learned the policies so quickly.
  • September 6-7, 2012 — Kerfuffler stays involved in political articles, but becomes very involved on the administrative side of Wikipedia, reverting vandalism, reporting vandals, voting in AfDs, starting a Wikipedia essay, and making an IRC cloak request [14].
  • September 8-11, 2012 — Kerfuffler defended StillStanding during the Sep 8 AN/I thread that resulted in the 2012 election sanctions. [15] [16] [17] [18](Note how they cite WP:PETTIFOG, WP:AGF, WP:TE, WP:FORUMSHOP, and WP:FILIBUSTERS in the third diff.)
  • September 11-present — Kerfuffler continues to revert vandalism on a wide range of articles and makes constructive comments on noticeboards. They become involved in articles like Homosexuality, Innocence of Muslims, and various election-related articles to a lesser extent. Meanwhile StilStanding is involved in the Wikiproject Conservatism RfC and the talk pages of election-related articles/
  • September 30, 2012 — After multiple warnings StillStanding gets topic banned from Paul Ryan, and his talk page spirals into the acrimonious attacks on TParis that lead to his eventual indef-block on October 5.
  • October 6, 2012 — StillStanding announces he is going on vacation. [19] Kerfuffler makes 11 more edits on October 6, then takes a break until October 9. This is the longest break Kerfuffler has taken since they started editing in early September.
Here's some more circumstantial evidence :-)

StillStanding-247, the 24-IP, and Kerfuffler all keep very strange hours. The peak editing time for all of them lies between 2:00 and 8:00 UTC, and they all apparently sleep between about 10:00 to 17:00 UTC, with the IP's bedtime being slightly earlier than Still's, and Kerfuffler's being a little later on average. These are fairly unique hours for someone in the US, and roughly equate to editing between 10 PM and 4 AM and then sleeping from 5 AM to 1 PM Eastern Time. (On the west coast, this would be less-weird, sleeping from 2 AM to 10 AM)

The other thing I noticed is that both StillStanding and Kerfuffler edit at all hours of the day, and both have a significant percentage of edits in the dead middle of the night when they should be sleeping. This is something I havenn't seen in any other user that I've ever stalked with WikiChecker.

Here's the editor interaction tool. This pretty much speaks for itself, but in summary there is significant overlap on various hot-button articles/talk pages like Paul Ryan, and Homosexuality. Also, notably, in late September Kerfuffler and Still disagreed briefly about BLP on Elizabeth Warren, and as Still began his attacks on TParis Kerfuffler distanced himself, no longer siding with StillStanding.

In addition to this, StillStanding and Kerfuffler seem to share the same political motivations and points of view, and are both bright individuals. They have a witty sense of humor and a slight persecution complex. (Take, for instance, Kerfuffler's old signature linking "harass/stalk" instead of "talk/contributions".)

Anyway, I think there's enough evidence here for an investigation. I personally don't think the CU will turn up much hard evidence, and I would be happy to explain my reasons in a private email. Finally, I don't have anything personal against Still or Kerfuffler, and if I'm wrong about this, I apologize to both in advance. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of your purported facts is wrong. The user log clearly shows that I created this account on 21 August 2008. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  17:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the error. I had simply gone by the first edit, which was in 2010. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What log is that? Why would you create the account in 2008 and then never use it until 2010? Arzel (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This log. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Comment What's with all the pitch forks and burning? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 17:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No pitch forks. It seemed just fishy enough that I decided to file. Hopefully I'm wrong–I like Kerfuffler. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm guessing this remark is a general complaint based on recent drama at the admin noticeboards, and not aimed specifically at Adjwilley, whose careful and almost apologetic manner in creating this request is a pretty good example of how to go about resolving one's concerns about sockpuppetry without being unduly accusatory or inflammatory. alanyst 18:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally don't see the connection. ISS is easy to spot, because he constantly quotes policy and guidelines, and usually gives the wrong interpretation. Kerfluffer doesn't do that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably not the same person, although the CU should be able to determine quickly if it is the case. On the other hand, Kerfuffler definately shows the experience of a well-versed editor, one that is not as new to WP as the edit history would lead one to believe. The IP, however, is not a sock by our definition. Arzel (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is shameful. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • There is no way I am going to check Kerfuffler based on the paucity of lnking evidence presented so far, and anyway I already know he's not editing from StillStanding's IP (or I would have mentioned it in the last check of StillStanding). Incidentally, Kerfuffler's editing history is pretty much similar to mine, if anyone wants to check. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC) fish CheckUser is not for fishing[reply]
  • no Declined - I have to agree with Elen here. As of two days ago, nobody else was editing from SS-247's IP, and there isn't anything here that makes me think a check is warranted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
02 October 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


MilesMoney, registered July 15, 2013, has quickly become a Wikiwarrior and Wikilawyer par excellence, and has made a few friends and several enemies. Recently he's been circulating on the noticeboards almost constantly, and I have been on the verge of blocking him myself several times for disruption, battleground behavior, personal attacks, and violation of talk page guidelines. The closer I got to this user the more they reminded me of User:StillStanding-247, and a lot of the same patterns started popping out. I have a feeling this case will have to be based mostly on behavioral similarities, since the users involved have hidden their IP addresses via some sort of VPN/Proxy voodoo, but I request a checkuser (to verify the single-IP VPN editing) and to search for potential sleepers. I have added a table below comparing the two users.

Comparison between the two users
StillStanding-247 MilesMoney
Both claim to be from eastern United States North America StillStanding-247 initially made no effort to hide their IP address which geolocates to Connectuicut. (IP user page, Geolocation) I believe this "unintentional" revealing of their geolocation and the later efforts to cover it up were a red herring meant to distract any who might suspect socking. MilesMoney, similarly declared that their ISP is in NewNorth York.
Both use some sort of VPN or proxy that is not their actual IP address. StillStanding did not actually reside in Connecticut. Referring to the ANI thread that lead to his indef-block he says, "the whole ANI 'discussion' took less than four hours in the dead of the night, and was closed before cooler heads could respond"". The referenced ANI discussion lasted from 13:25-17:22 UTC, or 9:25 AM to 1:22 PM Eastern US Time. I don't know anybody who would call this the "dead of night" unless they lived a long way west of Connecticut.

Additionally, while StillStanding was editing openly as an IP, they seemed to edit exclusively from the same IP address, 7 days a week, most hours a day, which would be quite unusual for a normal person with school, jobs, etc. (wikichecker) A CU of the user account should prove conclusively that they edited exclusively from this single Connecticut IP address as well.

 MilesMoney saying he uses a VPN to edit Wikipedia and download torrents
Both are involved in political subjects to the point of being single-purpose accounts Still Standing, arriving just in time for silly US election season, focused most of their efforts on election-related articles, along with hate-group articles related to the SPLC. They are perhaps most remembered for their antics at Paul Ryan. A huge number of Mile's edits are to Ayn Rand and related articles (Objectivism, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard). (Perhaps coincidentally, Paul Ryan allegedly "grew up reading Ayn Rand"). However, there is still significant overlap in the hate-group territory. See, for instance, the overlap at SPLC and Family Research Council.
Both keep the really weird hours for someone allegedly living on the east coast According to Wikichecker, StillStanding slept most consistently between about 10:00 and 15:00 UTC - translating to about 6:00 AM to 11:00 AM (wikichecker) There's not nearly as much data for MilesMoney so there's more noise, but they seem to sleep most often between about 8:00 and 13:00 UTC (4:00 AM to 9:00 AM). ([20])
Both make every dispute personal, with an odd tendency to call out users in section headings On Talk:Christian right, created a section titled Failure to BRD by Belchfire. On User talk:The ed17: Belchfire and the WikiProject Conservatism posse On User talk:Belchfire, Edit warring by Belchfire (There's more where this came from.)Why TParis doesn't deserve to be an admin On Talk:Murray Rothbart, The SRich and Bink show..."Welcome to the show of shows, where our pair of entertainers will dazzle you by tag-teaming to edit-war!"
Both get in silly drama disputes about hatting, modifying other's comments, personal attacks, etc. ANI report, striking and hatting an enemy's comment Striking and editing the opening statement of an RfC while it is in progress.Drastically modifying the section headingof that RfC after being warned multiple times to stop.hatting episode, More striking
Both engaged in regular removal of "embarrassing" material from their talk pages, while templating their "enemies" at every opportunity Ok, that was a cheap shot, since behavior like that is about par for the course.
Both spend most of their time arguing endlessly on talk pages and accusing people on user talk pages. The time spent on actual articles is relatively low. 48% Talk

12% Article

27% User Talk

13% Wikipedia (noticeboards, etc)

 54% Talk

23% Article

12% User Talk

10% Wikipeida

I could go on, but you could probably learn more by just checking out a random smattering of user talk page interactions or Administrator noticeboard threads (the one currently at AN/I for instance). Anyway, I'd like to get some eyes on this: As I've said earlier, I've been on the verge of blocking the user myself, but I don't want to do that while I have suspicions that they are User:StillStanding. (I consider myself slightly involved with Still, since I was their murder weapon of choice when they made their infamous death threat :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I have no idea what prompted this, since the cited behaviors seem to be widespread on WP and the and coincidences cited as suspicious must also be widespread among the large population of WP editors and residents of the identified timezone. Be that as it may, I am only posting here to say that one point in the table should be corrected: User Miles stated that he is located in North York not New York. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I misread that one. Across the lake from New York, but definitely not New York. I filed this because the stack of "coincidences" just kept getting thicker. (Edit by VPN and interested in American politics and SPLC and philosophy and keep extremely weird hours and personalize disputes and accuse everybody of lying and edit war up to 2-3RR (WP:GAME) and accuse others of trying to trick them into breaking 3RR and choosing arch-enemies and using the word "false" a lot and accusing people of not assuming good faith while not assuming good faith, and getting into silly striking and hatting disputes... (I could go on.) Coincidences, maybe, but not likely to have all of those intersect in two people. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If those were all independent characteristics then it would make it less likely for them to intersect in two people, but I don't think they are. The negative behaviors (personalizing, making accusations, etc.) in particular seem to be facets of an underlying adversarial attitude, and are more often observed in company with each other than in isolation. The shared interests (U.S. politics, SPLC, philosophy) and editing patterns (weird hours, VPN) also seem not to be quite orthogonal to each other. In short, I don't see these parallels Adjwilley has cited as narrowing the field of possible identities enough. If MilesMoney's behavior towards other editors is poor, it may be better to take action just on that basis rather than on a question of sockpuppetry. alanyst 16:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If only it was a single point! I've got very little to say about the "sock puppet" accusation -- the mismatch speaks for it itself -- but I'm genuinely bothered that Adjwilley's fishing expedition is fueled by a bunch of obvious mistakes.
As you said, I'm in North York, not New York, but, hey, that's only an 800km drive that crosses the border. While it's true that I slashed out a talk page comment, it was a blatant personal attack: the editor called me an anti-American bigot. Well, at least he didn't mistake me for an American. Likewise, I changed the RFC summary because it directly violated policy, and I was told that this was the correct response.
I was trained to address all points made in a debate, but I'm not going to defend myself against each and every error in this sloppy shotgun attack. All I'm gonna say is that you can't go by Adjwilley's summaries; they're just plain wrong. I'm gonna assume good faith and say Adjwilley was just really careless, not malicious, but the end result is the same. You're just gonna have to take the time to click on each link and read for yourself, wading through his mistakes.
By some strange coincidence, even though there's been no sign of the ironically-misnamed StillStanding for well over a year, two other editors have been falsely accused here in an attempt to block them. But I'm sure this time will be different, right? Have fun with that. MilesMoney (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm friendly with Adjwilley and thus inclined to view his actions in a positive light, so take this for what it's worth. I think his case for sockpuppetry is fairly weak but made out of an abundance of caution, in case you and StillStanding247 are the same person and any admin action he was contemplating against you would trigger WP:INVOLVED. But putting aside the question of sockpuppetry, it's clear that Adjwilley has concerns about some of your behavior, and a good way going forward might be to approach him on his talk page and calmly sound out the basis for his concerns, taking on board whatever valid points he makes as useful criticism. That alone would probably do more to disprove to Adjwilley his sockpuppetry suspicions than anything else, since that would have been entirely uncharacteristic of StillStanding247. alanyst 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, but I think I already did that when I asked him to "treat me as me". The thing is that we don't disagree about whether my behavior is acceptable, it's just that he's mostly wrong about the bare facts of my behavior. For example, he criticized me for slashing out a personal attack, which I believe is what policy requires.
In the end, I feel that he's not really treating me fairly. I'm doing my best to get up to speed on all the rules and policies, and I've made mistakes out of ignorance, but I'm getting better at this. Adjwilley seems to be holding me to a higher standard, as if I've got all of his years of experience here. He also seems to be treating me more harshly because I remind him of someone he once butted heads with. That's just wrong; I'm only responsible for my own behavior.
If my behavior is a problem, there are plenty of "uninvolved" administrators who can deal with it. But I'd really prefer for Adjwilley to become uninvolved by leaving it to them; his objectivity with regard to me is questionable. This sock accusation is just one example of this. MilesMoney (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped him a short, polite note. MilesMoney (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After I commented the location misstatement, this page pops up on my watch list, so I took a closer look. Adjwilley, most of what you list as coincidences seem to involve interpretation or broad characterization, sometimes tenuous, of the two editors' behavior rather than coincidences of fact. If we were to observe both suspects walking with a limp, wearing a green fedora, and fleeing a convenience store heist on a Segway, those would be objective factors we could call a coincidence. But this table has nothing like that. We observe Miles (who seems to have some academic interest or training in philosophy) arguing endlessly about a detail concerning Ayn Rand. Now looking at Still's edits, it seems that his interest is mainly in US politics. At the Paul Ryan article there's a section devoted to Ayn Rand's influence on Ryan but user Still did not edit this section. Instead Still is nitpicking details of the 2012 election campaign. He doesn't even comment on the characterization of Rand's work as "philosophy" -- which is the big issue for Miles on the Rand article. Then we look at the Ayn Rand article and it turns out that Still never edited the Ayn Rand article at all. Isn't this sockpuppet allegation a pretty serious charge to level without hard evidence? I don't know how "checkuser" works, but I get the impression that it's not an entirely objective or error-proof procedure. I am puzzled as to how the circumstances in your table would lead you to a strong enough concern to open this SPI? I know you to be thoughtful and dedicated to your role here on WP, so I'd like to ask you to consider whether to withdraw this investigation. Whatever other concerns you have about Miles' conduct can be addressed with other remedies and judged on diffs and other hard documentation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make some valid points. This is an imperfect process and the evidence is far from perfect. Consider this though: Both Adjwilley and I supported StillStanding-247 when he was here, trying in earnest to influence him to understand the greater purpose of Wikipedia and collaborate with other editors in a non-adversarial manner. Unfortunately, StillStanding's obstinance and pride won the day, and he was blocked. Now, a year later, Adjwilley and I both observe patterns in this new editor's contributions that seem very familiar, and we both come to same conclusion. Neither Adjwilley nor myself have skin in the game. I have little interest in Rand/Objectivism/Libertarianism/Austrian School and on other subjects, I probably share similar biases with both StillStanding-247 and MilesMoney. My only objective is to help foster a collegial editing environment. If MilesMoney is not a sock, then I hope they will take this as a warning that their continued participation in this project will likely come to a similar end as StillStanding-247's if they are not able to make some attitude adjustments. - MrX 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, since you raised the subject, I think it's only fair for me to point out that you have plenty of skin in the game. You endorsed Bink for admin, and Bink has had some conflicts with me. If you can tease a false positive out of this, you help Bink by getting rid of me. You brought it up, but it makes you look bad. MilesMoney (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LULZ! If you think this is part of some ill-conceived conspiracy to "help Bink" then you are most definitely smoking the drapes. - MrX 18:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said you had no skin in the game, and I showed that's not true. I said nothing about conspiracies, but I don't believe you when you say that your only objective is to foster a collegial editing environment, unless that's just a euphemism for getting rid of editors you dislike. MilesMoney (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to believe what you want, I guess. I don't know why I would want to get rid of you. As far as I know we have barely interacted and I concur with many, if not most, of your edits. I also don't dislike you, nor did I dislike StillStanding-247. I would actually like you to continue to contribute here, because I think you're intelligent, erudite and I can even enjoy your sarcasm. But please leave the adversarial attitude at the door; it serves no purpose here. - MrX 19:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stated goal of this report is to equate me with a long-departed editor who is unwelcome here, which would mean I would immediately become unwelcome. This speaks much louder than your stated motives, and make it clear that the adversarial attitude is coming from those who are taking an adversarial role against me. You have nothing to risk here; there's no penalty for a false accusation. But a false positive would help your friend, Bink, by getting rid of someone who often disagrees with his edits. If I thought CHECKuser was reliable, I'd just laugh this off, but it's scary what a quick search turns up. MilesMoney (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[insert]Sanity Check 34,022 instances of "false accusation" on a quick search here: false accusation. That kind of evidence is more for an "amateur statistician" than a statistician. The boards are about accusations and whether they are true or false. Do you really think there's factual evidence of sockpuppetry there? Really? If you want to help out here, please calculate the relative frequency of "false accusation" among all editors accused of something-or-other and compare it with the frequency you find in Still and Miles when they are accused. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say is was "factual evidence of sockpuppety" nor am I equipped to perform statistical analysis on the edits of 18 million users. The clerks and CUs are free to disregard my evidence if they believe it is faulty. - MrX 19:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also use the word "the" a lot, and so do you. Coincidence?! MilesMoney (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand why you posted that frankly vacuous comment MrX. If you agree it's not factual evidence, then what evidence did lead you to conclude that Miles is a sock? We all know that there's edit warring and nonsense PA and the like on numerous WP talk pages, so that can't be it. Putting up a specious reason such as common language denying talk/noticeboard allegations and then saying "never mind" seems out of place for this venue. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Evidence

  • MilesMoney created an account on July 15, 2013 and 11 days later posted to ANI. (They posted to DRN within 7 days of creating an account).
  • StillStanding-247 created an account on July 21, 2012 and posted to ANI two weeks later. (He posted to DRN on the same day he created an account). Admittedly he edited as 24.45.42.125 (talk · contribs) Notice the interest in Libertarianism and Objectivism ‎here[21]

None of this evidence is damning by itself, but taken as whole, suggests that something is up. - MrX 17:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I posted on DRN as soon as I was asked to. I posted on ANI because you told me about it. What a coincidence that you bring it up now.
Fact is, you were on my case the day I started and you haven't been off it since. You've personally attacked me on [[Talk::Ayn Rand]] and elsewhere, and this is just more of the same. Like Adjwilley, if anyone actually clicks on your links, they'll find that your description is wrong. MilesMoney (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing me with another editor. - MrX 17:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's my line. Either way, you're pretending that my early visits to those drama pages is evidence, when all it shows is that I read what editors post on my talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Both editors have had unpleasant interactions with Arzel (talk · contribs). [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]- MrX 17:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I've also been known to drink water. MilesMoney (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand why you posted that frankly vacuous comment MrX. If you agree it's not factual evidence then what evidence did lead you to conclude that Miles is a sock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
You're not wrong, but let's also not lose focus. Whatever the questionable motives are, the bottom line is that there was never a case. Even alanyst, who is sympathetic to Adjwilley, generously calls it "fairly weak". This is before you factor in the many outright errors, much less the purely subjective aspects, much less the questionable motives.
My initial reaction was just to leave it alone and let it take its course or not, but I was deeply bothered by the factual errors and then annoyed by the risk of a false positive, especially by the plausible suspicion that the goal of this might be to fish for a false positive.
At this point, I'm not sure that further corrections are worth my time, or yours. Besides, I'm not a Wikipedia lifer, so even if I get the old heave-ho, it's not really that big a deal for me. I'm content with having done a bit to improve some articles. If I can improve some more, great. If not, I'll live, somehow. MilesMoney (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that you two are one in the same, but statements like the one above are not going to help since it sounds a lot like the last statement made by SS24. Arzel (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the similarity. He's brash and defiant; I'm resigned and stoic. He refused to apologize; I've not been asked to apologize. He said he was still standing but he's long gone; I'm willing to sit this out. I could go on, but like I said, why bother? Que sera, sera, mon ami.
Arzel, you're not even grasping at straws, you're miming the action without using straws. Relax. It'll all be over soon, one way or another. MilesMoney (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, if there's any chance of a false positive in whatever the "checkuser" comprises, I think it's a very bad precedent that an Admin should bring a charge like this with sloppy and subjective "evidence" and no supporting facts. This isn't like an ANI where the bad outcome is a block. This is a capital crime and a false positive ends the defendant's WP career. I think it's very unfortunate that an Admin would bring such a case and I am still hopeful that Adjwilley will withdraw this action. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The risk of being blocked due to a false positive is pretty slim, the CUs are pretty cautious about making sure their conclusions fit the technical evidence. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you are mistaken. The fact that I openly edit through a VPN means that no results could possibly exonerate me. It also means that, since the banned user apparently used a VPN, I'm automatically suspicious for doing the same. I took the liberty of Googling for "checkuser" and found that your confidence in the system is not reflected by the negative experience of others. MilesMoney (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call to drop charges due to no hard evidence Miles is interested in ANIs, concentrates his efforts on political articles, is not afraid to tangle with other users (particularly those lacking WP:Competence), and is highly critical of American conservatives and libertarians. So the fuck what? The same could be said of tens of thousands of other users. Subjecting him to this demeaning and invasive process on such flimsy grounds is reprehensible. This nonsense should be hatted immediately and Miles offered an apology. Steeletrap (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a clerk can correct me here, but it just occurred to me that since SS hasn't edited in a year or so they won't be able to access the checkuser data on his account. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to what I've recently Googled, a stale account further lowers the reliability of checkuser. Regardless, it's entirely unreliable in my case because I (openly) use a VPN and (supposedly) so did the blocked editor. It can only convict or exonerate reliably when all participants edit without VPN's. Otherwise, with a few minor technical exceptions that don't apply here (like shared cookies), it is impossible to rule anything in or out definitively, making it a subjective matter based on behavioral or linguistic analysis. Or, as we call it, guessing.
This is compounded by the False positive paradox, in which even a mostly-reliable test yields more false results than true ones when there is a low base rate. Since only a small fraction of editors are socks, subjecting one to checkuser without exceedingly strong reason for suspicion leads to the foreseeable result that most of those found guilty shouldn't have been.
Certain editors are applying the "nothing to hide" principle, in which you blame the victim for not wanting to be arbitrarily subjected to error-prone, invasive scrutiny, and this offends me more than everything else. You might as well tell me to strip down to prove that I'm not wearing a bomb. After all, if I have nothing to hide, then why would I be reluctant to have my naked body stared at and photographed by hostile strangers?
There is no way to find out the detailed basis for a false positive, much less appeal it. This raises the stakes of the error to account-death, and given the high probability of error, it would be unfair to move forward with this. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just provided enough evidence to seal your own fate. - MrX 23:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confused. MilesMoney (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, I don't understand what you mean by that or what's in that link to support it. Please explain. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that, after a week of edits on other pages, User:MrX has declined to respond to my request for clarification of his Oct 3 reference to "evidence". SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to link MilesMoney to banished user Still Standing other than the subjective reactions of a few editors who are currently interacting with MilesMoney. As I've stated above, the logic of what the accusers call "evidence" is defective. This SPI should be closed now. Even if WP were to accept the kind of subjective hunches and impressions which have been advanced here, we would need to solicit such opinions from the many editors who were involved with Still Standing and ask them to study all the interactions of Miles Money and then evaluate their views against the accusers on this page. I can't believe that the WP community, which includes many users and Admins who are highly rigorous, logical, and thorough in their thinking, would endorse action based on the kind of personal anecdote and fallacious rhetoric which has been presented in this SPI. It's time to close this mess. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't answer you because your question seemed insincere and obtuse. In any case, the link provides behavioral evidence of similar phrasing, style and tone between SS and MM. Much like this and this. - MrX 15:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your projection of those characteristics on me does not speak well for your judgment or experience with interpersonal interaction. I've previously explained to you that the kind of coincidences you're imputing to your biased sampling of user writings does not support the inferences you're presenting here as evidence. Those links do no such thing. There are thousands or tens of thousands of editors who "sound like that" -- this is simply not what is meant by evidence. But, I repeat myself: One would need to establish the parameters for the population before concluding that the sample deviates significantly from the population. Your understanding of these issues of sampling, bias and inference is not strong enough to support your participation here. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"x or it didn't happen" is a common phrase.[27] — goethean 19:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...Apparently not that common, since your Google search of site:wikipeia.org only returned only 156 hits, two of which, presumably, come from the alleged sockpuppets... either way, it's irrelevant now, since the investigation has been closed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adjwilley, The diff in which Miles says "X or it didn't happen" was quoting a Wikipedia How-to page which explains good practice using diffs. I do hope you'll reflect on this SPI of yours and perhaps get some additional perspective by seeking, off-wiki, the reactions of other Admins whose judgment you trust. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: Declining CU request on technical grounds; all activity linked to suspected sockmaster is stale (except for one IP address, and CU's can't publicly link IP's to accounts), and only one new suspected sockpuppet is named here (so nothing for a CU to do if can't link to the sockmaster). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd like to briefly comment. Mostly, I want to go on record saying that I'm not entirely satisfied.
On the one hand, it's right that the CU was refused, since it couldn't give a reliable answer. On the other, I believe the fishing expedition should have been canceled even earlier in the process because there was never any credible evidence, there were many obvious errors, and Adjwilley has a habit of incorrectly accusing editors of being StillStanding-247.
Just to be clear, it doesn't really matter whether it's malice or incompetence; what matters is that Adjwilley should not be filing SPI's on such a flimsy basis. He's an admin; he ought to know better than to cry wolf. On that note, I'm going to hold Adjwilley to his earlier promise of staying away from me instead of hounding or otherwise retaliating.
I'm sorry you even had to deal with this. MilesMoney (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will offer no opinion on the validity (or lack thereof) of this SPI filing, or its likely conclusion. However, Miles, it seems from your comment that you are of the mistaken belief that this investigation has been completed. If you look further up the page, you'll see the status is "An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behaviour investigation." Mojoworker (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is this where we get the false positive? MilesMoney (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/StillStanding-247/Archive&oldid=647860130"