Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:07, 2 October 2013

StillStanding-247

StillStanding-247 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/StillStanding-247/Archive.

02 October 2013

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• MilesMoney (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've dropped him a short, polite note. MilesMoney (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Endorse - I also came to conclusion that MilesMoney is likely StillStanding-247. I first noticed this a few weeks ago. The edit warring, noticeboard posts and personalized talk page discussions seemed very familiar. There are some subtle, but very convincing, phrasings used by both accounts. For example, both editors frequently use the word "false" or "falsely" in their talk posts and edit summaries.
• SS-247 examples: edit summaries false accusations false accusations falsely accused
• MM examples: edit summaries falsely accusing false accusations false accusations

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)

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)

I also use the word "the" a lot, and so do you. Coincidence?! MilesMoney (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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 ] 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)

I think you're confusing me with another editor. - MrX 17:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

ETA: Both editors have had unpleasant interactions with Arzel (talk · contribs). - MrX 17:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and I've also been known to drink water. MilesMoney (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases for pre-CheckUser review
• SPI cases requesting a checkuser