Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steeletrap

Steeletrap

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

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steeletrap/Archive.

09 February 2015

– A checkuser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 88.88.22.29 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.88.36.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 80.212.111.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

It is my belief that Steeletrap (who was retired until a few hours ago) has used an IP to evade scrutiny in order to re-ignite a campaign of harassment against Binksternet. Steeletrap has previously been called to account for harassment here. Yesterday, an IP 88.88.22.29 posted comments on Binksternet's talk page similar in tone and style to comments previously posted by Steeletrap on the same page.

• 88.88.22.29: [1] [2]
• Steeletrap: [3] [4] [5]

• Adding some IPs that overlap the first IP on Dominique Strauss-Kahn and User talk:Binksternet- MrX 02:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence

The following behavioral evidence is common to both users. Obviously I am not claiming that all evidence is necessarily exclusive to these users.

Behavioral Evidence	88.88.22.29	Steeletrap	80.212.111.41	88.88.36.157
Refers to Binksternet as Binkie or Binky	[6] [7]	[8] [9]	[10]
Refers to Wikipedia as WP	[11] [12]	[13] [14]	[15]
Frequent use of quote marks, often mixing single and double quotes in the same comment	[16] [17] [18]	[19] [20] [21] [22]		[23]
Leaves a space between the colon(s) and text when posting threaded comments	[24] [25]	[26] [27] [28]		[29]
Edited one or more economist biographies (IPs made the same edit)	[30]	[31] [32]	[33]	[34]

- MrX 00:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Change of diction

• It's worth noting that 88.88.22.29 (from Norway?) changes her diction in the course of a few hours. Initially, her spelling, grammar, and syntax are impeccable:
  • 06:37, 7 February 2015
  • 07:00, 7 February 2015
  • 21:07, 7 February 2015
  • 21:20, February 7, 2015

• Even her first post to ANI is shows a high degree of competency in English: 21:20, 7 February 2015

• Then, Beyond My Ken posits that 88.88.22.29 is evading a block at 21:36, 7 February 2015

• Soon after, 88.88.22.29 starts using slang and teen chat:
  • 21:45, 7 February 2015 "bakatcha"
  • 22:12, 7 February 2015 "q's", "tnx", "I'm outta here"
  • 22:40, 7 February 2015 "u're", "yr"
  • 23:27, 7 February 2015 "btr", "yrslf", "smbd", "w" (oddly though, this comment otherwise displays English language competency)

• In a comment on ANI, I hint that the IP may be Steeletrap: 00:36, 8 February 2015

• All of 88.88.22.29 comments from then on seemed to be straining to appear less proficient at English and at Wikipedia,
  • for example dropping articles and forgetting to signs posts: 01:32, February 8, 2015
  • Near-incoherency.02:08, 8 February 2015 (note also the use of the gender-neutral pronoun "hir") - Steeletrap is particularly sensitive about how her gender is referred to: [35]

Summary

The hounding of a specific user using a specific diminutive nickname, style similarities, and a rapid decent from near-perfect English to near-incoherency, could all be amazing coincidences but  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me- MrX 15:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Salvidrim!: - I'm wondering how closely you looked at the evidence that I presented, especially the unquantifiable evidence. For example, the tone and style of the personal attacks against Binksternet from both the IP and Steeletrap. Or the stylistic similarities in the IP's initial comments and Steeletrap's comments, and then the abrupt change in writing style as soon as it was suggested that the IP was a sock.

• As an aside, those claiming to have a superior statistics education have, in my opinion, failed to make their case. For example, in SPECIFICO's above post claiming "100,000 easy to find instances of "WP":" That's a bare data point without comparison. Actually, SPECIFICO's five searches yield 110,949 pages. If "WP" is replaced by "Wikipedia" in those same five searches, the result is 7,548,882 pages. So, out of 7,659,828 pages that include "WP" and/or "Wikipedia" (in the proposed search contexts), less than 1.5% contain "WP". Similarly, Collect's claim "A huge number of people use "WP" instead of mistyping Wikipedia all the time." lacks both evidence and specificity, and should be discounted as a legitimate refutation of the evidence that I presented.- MrX 18:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

MrX, it is important to be very careful and clear in making Noticeboard declamations concerning other editors. The ANI to which you link was much fury signifying nothing. While Steeletrap was accused of various misbehavior (and conceded having erred in at least one respect in her interactions with Binksternet,) the thread ended with no finding and no action taken by the Community. In my opinion it is misleading to state that Steeletrap was "called to account for harassment." By their nature all ANI threads begin with a concern or complaint but your statement is a WP:Weasel which does not help resolve the matter you have raised here. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If we are to accept circumstantial evidence such as the above, we need to see a reasoned attempt to quantify the relative frequencies of those behaviors among WP editors. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of uses of WP to refer to WP. There are at least many thousands of pairs of editors who have done so. In order to draw any meaningful inference from the observations referenced in this table, we need at the very least to know the probabilities of finding such behavior in the population. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of what's in this table, one cannot even conclude that the IP's behave similarly. BTW, thousands of WP editors leave a space after a colon in a threaded discussion. SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This link cited by MrX to an edit by one of the IPs presents a highly distinctive style, language, and use of abbreviation. MrX, can you cite various posts by Steeletrap that are written in a similar style or tone? SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

100,000 easy to find instances of "WP": [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

MrX, please consider my comments above concerning the need to quantify what you claim are unlikely events. You continue to omit any such standard from your accusations. Please also consider the following comment concerning probabilistic inference and independence of events. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP has already been blocked, so it will not be repeating its misdeeds. Clearly the IP was irked by Binksternet and I would not be surprised if the IP therefore checked Bink's history, logs, noticeboard appearances and saw that Bink has repeatedly been irked by and admonished editors who used the forbidden diminutive version of his username. It's guaranteed to annoy Binksternet, and various editors have used it to that effect. The evidence presented by MrX doesn't provide independent observations of the nickname. Quite the opposite. The IP could in fact be expected to find that name in the archives, see Binksternet's reaction, and use it to annoy him. This purported evidence does not show independent events the similarity of which which might arguably be cited as evidence of a common origin. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Quotation marks are found in millions of talk page and noticeboard edits by tens of thousands of editors. I see no evidence presented to substantiate the assertion that Steeletrap is a "frequent" user, nor that she "often" mixes single and double marks. Probabilistic statements about relative frequencies should be defined, estimated, and compared with the population. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is pathetic and OP needs to be banned for egregiously breaching WP:Competence. The IPs edit articles I have no interest in. He edits from a country I have never visited. And he speaks in a tone utterly distinct from mine.

My "harassment" charge against Binksternet was dismissed without any sanctions being leveled against me; the charge was predicated on my calling him "Binky." I do think Bink is a bad force for WP--and before I was forbidden from doing so under penalty of death, I liked teasing him and calling him the b-word--but I have no desire to harass him. He seems like a perfectly nice guy and does not deserve to be harassed--harassment, digital or not, is serious shit. Incidentally, many other other WP editors have teased Bink by use of the b-word. Steeletrap (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My econ edits are largely confined to Austrian economists. Strauss-Kahn is better known as a public figure than as an economist. What pathetic evidence. Mister X needs a WP:Competence check. Steeletrap (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the idea that our writing styles are similar is laughable. This guy's English is pretty coarse, which is scarcely surprising given that it's almost certainly a second language. Steeletrap (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Successful demonstration that the IPs are likely to be one person, no real behavioural evidence that they are Steeletrap. A huge number of people use "WP" instead of mistyping Wikipedia all the time. A relatively huge number of people start comments with a space after a colon. The evidence would equally point to me as being Steeletrap, which unfortunately suggests that while the IPs are certainly one person, they ain't all that likely to be me or Steeletrap. Collect (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The IPs were blocked yesterday, so the discussion appears to be moot. TFD (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, the IPs were blocked and the articles protected before this SPI was launched. [41] [42] Unfortunately, this vacuous SPI appears to have been filed out of spite against Steeletrap, who sassed MrX at the ANI. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not quite understanding why Salvidrim! closed this case. It is true that the IPs had already been blocked, but for reasons other than sockpuppetry, and their blocking still leaves open the question of who the puppetmaster behind them was. (It's all but certain that there was one.) Salvidrim! did not evaluate the evidence presented by MrX ("I am closing this case without additional comment as to the socking allegations" - emphasis in original}, which does not seem to me to be appropriate. The evidence does not appear to me to be strong enough to prove that Steeletrap was behind the IPs, but surely an admin should at least evaluate the evidence with a mind towards whether it's sufficient to support a CU or not. BMK (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  I agree. The purpose of these investigation is not to simply block socks, but to prevent sockmasters from violating WP:SOCK in the future. I'm a little taken aback that my considerable effort in presenting evidence seems to have been been casually dismissed. Salvidrim!, perhaps you can explain why this investigation was closed, apparently without a review of the evidence.- MrX 21:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Salvidrim! I agree with you that the evidence does not prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt", but I do not think that is the standard required to justify a CU. BMK (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unless I'm mistaken (and I could well be), CUs will run checks between registered accounts and IPs, but they will not report the results. In any case, if there is sufficient evidence that an editor has been socking with IPs, the CU run should -- I would hope -- also determine if they have been socking with another account. If not, then we really aren't making very productive use of the CU capability. BMK (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Have people on this thread taken introductory statistics? It's an embarrassment to WP that this statistically illiterate allegation remains "open." Steeletrap (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I continue to be amazed by how easily WP "Administrators" fall prey to group think and peer pressure. Hence the "re-opening" of this ridiculous thread, which--given the absence of anything approaching credible evidence--actually amounts to a prolonged personal attack. How Mister X has any credibility after making charges like this also strains credulity. Longevity and sucking up to the good old boys is all you need to "earn" a reputation on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're getting bent out of shape about. If the case against you is as flimsy as you claim, then an evaluation of it will show that when it's made. All I've asked for is that the evaluation actually be done, which is not yet the case. The investigation wasn't closed because the evidence has been shown to be substandard, the case was closed because the IPs have already been blocked, and that seemed to some to be the end of the case. It was re-opened to allow a neutral evaluation of the evidence to determine if a CU was justified. I can't see why you'd object to that, considering your stance. BMK (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a principle, that accusations should not be leveled without adequate evidence, that is worth fighting for. I imagine you'd object if I started a groundless SPI against you. But I will consent to your unjust and groundless request for a search to end this matter. In the meantime, I hope you admit that you have no idea what you're doing with regard to statistical analysis. If you did, you'd realize that the evidence is "substandard." Steeletrap (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have seen too many SPI cases opened either out of pique or out of ignorance of basic concepts of probability and stochastic inference. As a community, we should have an expectation of probable cause to open an SPI case. In the absence of such, it seems entirely appropriate to me that an experienced SPI Admin should dismiss a case with the equivalent of what a court of law would call a pretrial dismissal. There are too many editors who, despite what we may assume are their good intentions, simply lack the ability to construct a clear and rational case here. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to assume, perhaps naively, that the SPI "team" is not composed of half-wits, but contains a person or two who has taken basic statistics. If my assumption is right, this case will be reclosed soon. Steeletrap (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not quite sure what to make of this. I can definitely see what MrX is talking about with the abrupt change of writing style; and the harassment of Binksternet does seem very familiar. The IP's target article (Dominique Strauss-Kahn) seems to lie within Steeletrap's area of interest (Jewish and an economist). I never know what to think when people attack the evidence but don't explicitly deny socking. @Steeletrap, I know it's a silly question now, but do you deny that you were the person behind those IP addresses? ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• The three listed IPs have been blocked as the result of an AN/I discussion, so I am closing this case without additional comment as to the socking allegations. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• No additional action has been taken as a result of this case because the evidence demonstrate that the IPs are likely to be the same person, but doesn't establish beyond reasonable doubt that they are in fact Steeletrap. I find Collect's, SPECIFICO's and Steeletrap's arguments towards this to be credible. However, I am just one human, so I have no objections to unclosing this case and letting another clerk have a look and provide their own opinion before filing this away in the archives. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken - Checkuser will not run checks to link accounts and IP addresses. Such cases have to be decided solely on behavioural evidence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken - I generally have great respect for your judgement, and will speak to the SPI team about this case later tonight. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Clerk note: Please stop bickering without presenting new evidence. Increasing the case length is not helping. We will look into it, and we thank you for your patience in this matter. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Checkuser comment: as noted by Salvidrim!, checkusers do not normally run checks to link accounts to IP addresses. I don't see any reason for an exception here. Declining. Risker (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

---