Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon/Archive

Report date March 12 2009, 09:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Immortale (talk)

It's not allowed to ask friends or people to create accounts to support you or anyone else. Keepcalmandcarryon has done that at this forum: http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/archive-activism/374-wikipedia-ame-a319.html under the name msn_keepcalmandcarryon where he or she invited people to join a wikipedia article where keepcalmandcarryone was active as an editor, to support his/her point of view. Immortale (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Whilst WP:CANVASS offers some advice here, the reporter has not put forward details of any alleged socks. In any case, even canvassing editors is not an abuse of WP:SOCK (unless the canvasser directs their edits). Mayalld (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Ward20
Reason for submission: likely multiple infractions of WP:ILLEGIT. The (User:Keepcalmandcarryon, User:RetroS1mone) accounts were created within hours of each other in May of 2008 and started editing a few articles together. The User:RetroS1mone account became dormant six months ago, not long after a user RFC about original research, reversions of material, accusation about editors, and non response on talk pages. Concerns about similarities of the two accounts' editing on Chronic fatigue syndrome related articles have been expressed. User:RetroS1mone was recently recruited to resume editing by User:Keepcalmandcarryon, became active, and supported User:Keepcalmandcarryon's article talkpage positions.

The timeline and diffs below suggest the accounts are the same editor. Note the accounts display different writing styles on talk pages. User:Keepcalmandcarryon exhibits a high fluency in written English. User:RetroS1mone's edits vary between a similar fluent English and non-fluent English.. However, their writing style on article content appears comparable.

If the accounts are the same editor, it reveals an elaborate attempt to appear as multiple people to edit the same page and related articles to avoid scrutiny.

Timeline

1-2 May 2008, both accounts are created within hours of each other. Both accounts edited AIDS denialism on their first or second edit on Wikipedia. Both accounts edited together early on, the articles Prostitution, and Articles for deletion/Mark Hanau.

28 July 2009, there was an RFC about User:RetroS1mone's editing concerning original research, reversions of material, accusation about editors, and non response on the talk pages, mostly on articles about Chronic fatigue syndrome. (Important when comparing the two accounts.)

13 August 2009, User:Keepcalmandcarryon posts on User:RetroS1mone's talk page and urges that account to take a break. User:Keepcalmandcarryon mentions,"I'll be on holiday for a while (probably completely undeserved, but internet-free)."

17 August 2009, User:RetroS1mone stops editing until 17 February 2010, and 18 August 2009, User:Keepcalmandcarryon posts her talk page, "due to being out in the internet-less wilds for a week is taking a short wikibreak"..

January 2010, User:Keepcalmandcarryon creates and edits new articles on topics related to Chronic fatigue syndrome. (last now deleted)

Jan-Feb 2010, Three editors note how similar User:Keepcalmandcarryon and User:RetroS1mone accounts edit.

14 February 2010, User:Keepcalmandcarryon recruits User:RetroS1mone to come back and edit.

17 February 2010, User:RetroS1mone starts editing again and removes talk page content about editing similarites of User:Keepcalmandcarryon and User:RetroS1mone, and supports User:Keepcalmandcarryon's positions.

There are more diffs that show the likelihood the different accounts are the same editor. They have not been included here for brevity. Ward20 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

User:RetroS1mone and I are former colleagues (I, a researcher, Simone an assistant). In the spring of 2008, I gave an informal seminar to several colleagues on Wikipedia science editing. I had edited Wikipedia from IP addresses and, on occasion, with accounts, the passwords or usernames for which I forgot due to infrequent use.

The motivation for my Wikipedia seminar was the news, passed on by a colleague at another institute, that a group of AIDS denialists were planning to subvert medical information on Wikipedia. I, Simone and at least one other colleague created accounts after the seminar. I have been using this account permanently and exclusively since then. In the subsequent weeks (I don't recall the exact timing), I advised Simone on Wikipedia protocol, language, etc. Both of us were unaware of Wikipedia's meatpuppet policy at the time, and it is possible my advice may have been too specific or leading. When I became aware of the meat concept, my advice ended. At no point have I edited from her account or she from mine. Our contact also came to an end shortly thereafter with employment changes. Although I have occasionally seen her edits on pages I've watchlisted, we seem to have different interests and have certainly not coordinated our editing.

In the past year, I have had the following contact with Retrosimone:
 * She sent me an email last summer, to which I responded with a post on her talkpage. She requested assistance with articles where, she stated, Ward20, Sam Weller and several other special-interest editors were practising ownership and harrassing her. I declined to get involved, as chronic fatigue syndrome is not a particular interest of mine.
 * Last week, I apologised to Simone for not helping her last summer. Since October, because of a high-profile claim that a virus causes CFS, I have had occasion to witness the behaviour Retrosimone complained about last summer...which has now extended to leveling sockpuppet charges against me. Simone responded on her talk page. To the best of my recollection, this has been the extent of my contact with her for over 18 months. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As regards the possibility of current meatpuppetry, I would like to emphasise that, in my recent contact with Retrosimone, I apologised and encouraged her to consider editing again but didn't request that she respond to my RfC or make edits to any specific article. With the exception of her edits to Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute, all of her edits were to pages I don't edit and haven't watchlisted. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to the comment below, as I've already stated, I helped Simone with Wikipedia procedures and language in the days/weeks after she opened her account. If this was meatpuppetry, it was done without knowledge of the concept. If disciplinary actions are warranted, punish me by all means, but it's my understanding that sanctions are to be applied as prevention, not two years after the fact.
 * I would also like to appeal to whomever conducts the Checkuser: please note that numerous Wikipedia editors are active at my institution. I know some of them personally. With the exception of my April/May 2008 seminar, I have never engaged any of these editors in conversation about specific editing plans, nor have they approached me for support. Please don't allow any sanctions on me to interfere with their contributions to the project. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * I have no real opinion on this, but I find the two diffs of Simone's writing styles particularly troubling. I don't know what you have to do in the course of two years to drop from highly-fluent English to... junior high text-message, but it's nothing legitimate. Seems like account-sharing at least (though with whom, again, I have no opinion). -- King Öomie 18:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Another thing that I find troubling is that their edits never overlap. To some degree, this could be put down to them being in different time zones, but clearly at least some of the times that they both edit do overlap.  Nevertheless, in a quick sort of both users' contribution lists in a spreadsheet, most edits from were 30 minutes or more or more away from the other.  In the rare instance where I found edits close together, one person's edits ended and the other's began a few minutes later, suggesting that the editor may have logged off as one user and logged on as the other.  It's not a smoking gun, but it does seem a little unlikely. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The word 'overlap' got me thinking. Do with this what you will- Toolserver breakdown of every page edited by both KCaCO (that seemed a less cumbersome acronym in my head) and Simone. -- King Öomie  02:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Being somewhat familiar with User:RetroS1mone's (R1) "style", I began to notice similar traits in User:Keepcalmandcarryon (KCACO) on the main relevant talkpages and other pages where debate spilled into. KCACO appears more polite, and I initially ignored the similarities as coincidence, but as they accumulated in an uncanny fashion I became highly suspicious. As for editing similarities between R1 and KCACO, I have not been involved enough (editorially) in these recent disputes (or spent enough time analysing edits) to give an accurate overview, but others have raised the issues of mass reversions, editing against consensus, and subtle twisting of sources which require disproportionately long debates to resolve otherwise straight-forward matters. Now that KCACO claims to have schooled R1 in Wikipedia protocol and language, the similarities make a lot of sense, but CheckUser would still aid confirmation that their apparent individuality is not just a ruse. R1 has recently returned, blazing in with exactly the same attitude that lead to a RFC against her. Fun times ahead? -  Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 02:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure of the difference between sock et and meat puppetry is so I apologise if this is the wrong place to post this, but what strikes me as similar is their tactics, Wikipedian knowledge and coordination in posting on article and talk pages.  Certainly within days of their account creation, they were executing a coordinated response on an AfD for Mark Hanau showing in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies etc..  During this another editor asked Keepcalmandcarryon "You refer to RetroS1mone as 'she'. May I ask how you knew this editor was female?", to which she replied "Admittedly, I don't, but the name 'Simone' is female AFAIK. One could also ask why you assumed the editor was male, but the gender of your critic is irrelevant."  Given her above claim that they were colleagues at this time, there has been a clear intent to hide any relationship between these accounts from their very creation. -- TerryE (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

After many months’ away from WP, RetroS1mone (RS) left a threat of blocking on my talk on 17 Feb.. Her activity log included the diffs in Ward20's notification, and a last edit at 14:41. One hour later, KC started editing. I alerted people more familiar with the admin boards than I am. KC launched an AN/I against me the next day. 

I hadn't come across KC before she started on CFS-associated articles in October 2009. Before then KC says she had no interest in CFS. Ampligen doesn’t appear in the list of 50 pages edited with RS - but KC is presently in a heated debate about its inclusion in one of her personal articles: and passim.


 * 15 consecutive edits at Ampligen


 * 9 consecutive edits at AZT


 * 15 consecutive edits at Lithium pharmacology.

Diffs 2 & 3 are signed KC. Diff 1 is attributed to RS, but shows a command of content with a fluent style that many native-English-speaking technical editors might envy. It fully equals 2 & 3, and undermines the hallmark ‘Simonese’ of the edit summaries and talk (e.g. ). However, the Ampligen edits were made months after RS was left to her own devices, and months before KC became interested in CFS. I am slightly troubled to learn that KC organised a WP training seminar at her institution because of a rumour that AIDS coverage was about to be subverted. That suggests an agenda of the sort that RS and KC have complained about so often in others ETA, and shown by deletion of “scientifically sound information” on toxicity and effectiveness. Sam Weller (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I recently edited the article pathologic nystagmus. That's an article about the eye. Last June, Retrosimone edited the article opossum. And what do opossums have in their cute little heads? That's right: eyes. Blatant sockpuppetry, obviously.
 * On a more serious note, I appreciate Sam Weller's concern and understand his/her desire to root out editors with the devious agenda of writing and defending scientifically sound information. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Although KCACO added the 1st negative XMRV-CFS study into the XMRV article, it was Sam Weller who added the 2nd  and Ward20 who added the 3rd . Similarly for the WPI article, KCACO added the 1st, TerryE the 2nd , and Ward20 the 3rd . Technical differences aside, the association of XMRV with CFS outside USA is not looking too good at the moment, and the above actions does not strike me as the agenda of a pro-XMRV cabal. -  Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 02:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is probably not the best place to discuss this, as it's entirely irrelevant to the Checkuser investigation. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand all of this. I've edited with Simone with no problems other than her being constantly attacked.  Keepcalmcarryon said he help Simone when she first started.  That editor wasn't at the article when I was there.  But the editors bringing these accusations are the same, for the most part, as those who disagreed with Simone edits.  I think this should be closed with no other actions taken.  What is here so far has no proof of anyone doing anything wrong.  These two editors work in the same location so a check will show that they are in the same location.  As for Simone being able to write a good English sentence and then having one that isn't good English is probably because she forgot to run it through a check.  This whole thing looks more and more like attacks, which needs to stop.  I would recommend to Keepcalmcarryon and Simone edit in different area to prevent this sort of problem.  Disclosure: I am not employed with them.  Thanks for listening, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Ward20 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

looks likely, however, I'd like to have the link confirmed. It may be meat puppetry (the messages sent to each other look fairly genuine), so if the check comes up as negative you may wish to pursue the matter at WP:AN/I, thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 13:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * same geographic area with user agent overlap. Meat puppets certainly plausible. Brandon (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above also, especially regarding that the CU evidence is iffy at best. –MuZemike 18:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by TerryE

 * Statistical Analysis — Keepcalmandcarryon vs. RetroS1mone

I was intrigued by a comment made on the previous inconclusive SPI, which was about the suspicious timing relationships of the posts of Keepcalmandcarryon and RetroS1mone. From previous statistical work that I'd done professionally, I realised that it would be possible to construct a strong statistical test to examine this assertion, so I developed the query scripts and did this analysis, writing it up in a paper on my development wiki, as I felt that the approach could have wider applicability for SPIs. However, I was uncertain about next step since Keepcalmcandcarryon seemed to be largely working within editing norms following the SPI. However, I now realise that I need to raise this issue given this week's actions.

I've copied the paper to User:TerryE/Supplemental SPI analysis. This describes a standard non-parametric KS-test comparing Keepcalmandcarryon (U) to RetroS1Mone (D) and the other three control users. (My reason for using the U-D was that my paper was written to discuss the analytic technique and I originally intended to keep the identities anonymous.) The test shows that the control users were editing independently of Keepcalmandcarryon, but that RetroS1Mone was definitely not. Given the posting distributions, you would anticipate some 23% of the K↔R posting transitions to be within 1 hour — that is ~60 of the 263 counted. There were actually only 5, and no transitions were closer than 52 minutes (See this plot). This is truly a remarkable observation (and the probability of this happening by pure chance is less than 1 in 1021). So the postings of Keepcalmandcarryon and RetroS1mone are coordinated and are most probably from the same editor.


 * Statistical Analysis — Keepcalmandcarryon vs. MiRroar

Last week the RetroS1mone account initiated AfDs on two notable CFS authors (Bell and Fennell). The only user to support deletion was MiRroar and this raised a flag because RetroS1mone and MiRroar were two of the three "uninvolved editors" on an RfC that Keepcalmandcarryon recently raised (WPI RfC). So I ran the script again, this time testing MiRroar against Keepcalmandcarryon and two of the controls, and got a similar result: MiRroar's posting times are correlated to Keepcalmandcarryon but independent of the two controls. (See this plot where U=MiRroar and A=Keepcalmandcarryon). This test was also positive: a cα for MiRroar vs Keepcalmandcarryon of 1.95 means that we can reject the KvsM independence hypothesis at an α=0.001.

This time the reason for the correlation seems to be different: instead of a minimum separation, the posts are being tailgated too often: that is a sequence of K's edits often immediately follows those of M's without interleave or v.v.. Yes, this could happen by a remote chance, but what this test shows is that the time sequencing of Keepcalmandcarryon's and MiRroar's is a more coupled than we should reasonably expect.


 * Timeline

This timeline relates solely to events relevant to this SPI and the proposal that Keepcalmandcarryon = RetroS1mone = MiRroar. It does not discuss any broader issues of user conduct which should be the subject of a separate RFCU.

RetroS1Mone and Keepcalmandcarryon have both edited a number of other articles as well as the WPI article.


 * Observations

If the administrators accept my proposal that Keepcalmandcarryon, RetroS1Mone and MiRroar are all operated by a common agent as is supported by the timing evidence, then it is clear that this person has gone to some lengths to conceal this association from conventional sockpuppet analysis and denied it "on record":
 * Keepcalmandcarryon has done a lot of excellent work on HIVS, AIDS Denialism and general virology. She also holds the view that CFS is of psychosomatic origin and edits strongly against possible biological links in such articles as XMRV and WPI.  The writing style is that of a educated native English (non-US) speaker.
 * RetroS1Mone has edited across a range of articles related to CFS and similar illnesses. She strongly holds the view that CFS is of psychosomatic origin and edits strongly against possible biological links to this illness.  The writing style is that of a non-native English speaker, with awkward use of language on talk pages, though strangely not on the article content itself.
 * MiRroar has created a number of articles relating to microbiology and HIV. The editing style is always constructive, polite and non-confrontational.  MiRroar also actively contributes to RfC and AfD reviews.
 * The Keepcalmandcarryon vs RetroS1Mone separation probably reflects the use a work PC/Internet for the former and home PC/Internet for the latter which will defeat detailed check-user but also causes the observed time separation.
 * The Keepcalmandcarryon vs MiRroar editing exhibits close tailgating, and if I were doing this I would probably use a separate browser and VPN or proxy for the second account to defeat check-user.
 * I was very reluctant to initiate this whilst RetroS1mone wasn't involved in hostile editing, because both the Keepcalmandcarryon and MiRroar accounts have done a lot of excellent work in Wikipedia. However, at their heart these actions above conflict with WP:ILLEGIT, WP:SCRUTINY and WP:GHBH and make it impractical to assume good faith here.

-- TerryE (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I do not know these users and I do not edit with them. I am interested in microRNAs and academic biographies. I am a regular contributor to RfC on science and review for articles for deletion of academics. MiRroar (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A paper? With standard non-parametric KS tests? This is the third (and by far the most unusual and time-consuming) sockpuppet investigation filed against me with little or no evidence by individuals who strongly disagree with my edits for apparently political and personal reasons. The first was dismissed as invalid. The second proceeded to checkuser before dismissal and was accompanied by a barrage of accusations from a group the current accuser, TerryE, has referred to as an "inner circle" of editors who hold strong and medically questionable views on chronic fatigue syndrome. These individuals are mostly single-purpose editors whose confrontational behaviour towards those who would (in accordance with Wikipedia policies) portray the mainstream view of chronic fatigue syndrome has discouraged most knowledgeable medical editors from involvement with CFS-related pages. This behaviour has in the past included legal threats and disclosure of personal, damaging information, leading to permanent blocks of several editors. Although the remaining editors are often more civil, they have demonstrated an impressive (or disturbing) willingness to spend vast amounts of time not in improving the encyclopaedia, but in attempting to ban their perceived opponents, including, recently, myself, or, in failing to do so, to impede their editing by obliging response to baseless accusations.


 * In the previously dismissed SPI, accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Retrosimone, I candidly explained my past relationship with the editor in question, including my objections to aspects of her behaviour. (I, by the way, am not a "she", although TerryE has always referred to me as such.) Retrosimone has been only sporadically active, no doubt because of the pattern of intimidation practised by TerryE's inner circle. That Retrosimone has recently chosen to make several edits to one article at which I, too, am active is beyond my control. I have several hundred articles on my watchlist, and I edit many of them regularly. The insistence that I have "coordinated" with Retrosimone is, in my opinion, a failure to assume good faith and is inconsistent with the available evidence.


 * As for the accusations that I am User:Miroar, please consider the obvious differences in writing style and editing patterns; I don't consider it a good use of my time to conduct a detailed analysis, but I'll do so if necessary. It's interesting that both lack of overlap and overlap of edits, depending on the circumstances, have been presented, here and in the past, as purported evidence of sockpuppetry.


 * I kindly ask the reviewing administrator to dismiss these renewed, baseless, and clearly personally motivated accusations and to consider the intensely personal interest TerryE has taken in removing what he views as opposition to his point of view. That an individual user would conduct original research, writing computer programs, conducting statistical analyses of questionable value and writing what he refers to as a paper about the subject, in an attempt to revive a recently closed SPI with the goal to remove productive editors from Wikipedia simply because he disagrees with several of their edits.....well, that's disturbing to me, and I would imagine to others as well. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I took one very long break from Wiki, August 2009 - Feb 2010 b/c of harassment from these people, co-ordinated bullying of me by sockpuppets and meat puppets and recruited editors and it was not fun any more. February 17 i came in again and i had 19 edits, ten on articles and nine on talk, and right after those people are co-ordinating and say i am a sock!! I do not edit again it is disgusts me, i break until April 27 and i make 75 edits on 15 articles. Right immediate, there are these people also ones who did not edit in weeks to revert me, it is very suspicious for me. I make ONE EDIT TO A PAGE where KCCO was and there is same sock puppet investigation against me and KCCO again, and i make two deletion noms and i am a sock puppet w/ a person also i never heard from before b/c they agreed on my opinion. It is bullying, pls help.  RetroS1mone   talk  03:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My brief working relationship with User:RetroS1mone ended in 2008. Since the last SPI in late February, I have had no contact with her. I left a message on her talkpage yesterday, which has now been deleted. During the past year, unless I've missed something, RetroS1mone has edited three articles of 261 on my watchlist, and only one article in the past six months: Whittemore Peterson Institute, where she made exactly one mainspace edit.

User:MiRroar has edited no articles on my watchlist. As far as I can tell (and I certainly don't have the programming skills of TerryE), this user has overlapped with RetroS1mone by responding to two AfDs filed by the latter. MirRoar has responded to about 60 AfDs since last October and is an occasional editor, most of whose edits appear to be addition of mainspace content.

If TerryE is interested in nailing me to the wall, there are several editors who are much more likely to be my sockpuppets or puppetmasters than these two. I work in a large organisation with several thousand science-literate individuals with internet access. I know of at least seven immediate colleagues who edit Wikipedia from the same IP address as I, at least two of whom are familiar with my editing activities. I believe the IP address has been blocked several times because of actions by anonymous editors. I have never attempted to edit through a proxy or otherwise to conceal my IP address. One colleague, who, as far as I know, would not connect me with my username and does not know me on a first-name basis, has edited several articles with me. We did not coordinate these edits, and I have never discussed Wikipedia with him, but I'm confident TerryE could connect us statistically with an alpha less than 0.00001 and have us both blocked.

In addition, as I stated during the previous SPI, I conducted a workshop on Wikipedia science editing two years ago, in spring, 2008. In the past six months, I have used the Wikipedia XMRV controversy as an illustration in a lecture to students. Although I have never and would never require Wikipedia editing as a class assignment (in contrast with many individuals who use Wikipedia as a teaching tool), I would not be surprised if some of my students have followed the debate. In fact, given that I've made no secret of my Wikipedia activities, I'm surprised that none of my colleagues or students has, to my knowledge, come to my defense unbidden in a Wikipedia debate....I suppose that goes to show how unpopular I am! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Note that RetroS1mone has previously been checkusersed and they came up as "possible", see Sockpuppet investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon/Archive. SpitfireTally-ho! 18:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be pointed out that K-S tests generally may deduct some correlation if there is any pattern, such as U posting from work and D from home in the same time zone, even if there is no other pattern. If you wish to E-mail me your full analysis, I'll comment on it, in addition to the the fact that if your analysis could produce "positives" on one of many analyses, the probability of a "false positive" is the probability that any of the analyses produce a significant result, even those analyses similar to, but not discussed in, the overall analysis.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have the statistical knowledge to comment on Terry's analysis, but I'm slightly skeptical. I've suggested to him that he tries his analysis on 10 random wikipedia editors to see if he gets any false positives.


 * Also, the previous checkuser only looked at user-agent and geographic area. Considering that KKCO and Retro work together, that info isn't exactly useful. What you would need to do is look at the login/logout times - if they are the same user then you would most likely find one user logging out and then immediately logging in as the other user from the same ip. Unfortunately checkuser doesn't seem to give you this info as far as I can tell. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A brief correction: Simone and I were colleagues until 2008. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Terry's analysis supports my previous suspicions about the "uncanny similarities" between Keepcalmandcarryon (K for short) and RetroS1mone (R for short). K claims to have schooled RetroS1mone in the art of editing Wikipedia, so apparently R emulates K's same tactics of twisting sources and baseless accusations? It was revealed in the previous SPI that K has in the past appeared to conceal their association with R. Something seems very fishy about their current association as well. IMO they are either the same person, or at a bare minimum have some sort of relationship that goes beyond merely being ex-colleagues with no further communication as K claims. I have not had that much interaction with K, much more with R. The trouble that R has caused is outside the scope of this current SPI, but being a possible sockpuppet of K is very concerning indeed. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is harassment, plain and simple. TerryE has a content disagreement, and is dissatisfied that Wikipedia does not present fringe views as unvarnished truth. These repeated filings represent blockable behaviour (note: I have edited at Whittemore Peterson Institute and probably some of the other relevant articles, and shall not be acting administratively here). I have requested review at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For the not staistically inclined, these are helpful to get a visual on the timing issues:  .--Chaser (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have had contact with RetroS1mone. I wached the last case agaist these users and read the explaination between Keepcalmcarryone and RetroS1mone, and I thing some assuming good faith is desperately needed already.  These two editors have explained their connections to each other the last time around.  Simone takes long breaks from editing esp. when things get too stressful.  I've seen this user attacked and abused on many ocassions and I think it's time to put this to rest already.  I see nothing above that is proof and only see a fishing trip in the future of this.  I do not know, nor have I ever heard of the third editor. Please close this down already.  Thanks for listening, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has edited with KKCO and Retro will know they have very different editing styles and personalities. Even a quick look through their edit summaries shows very different style. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I think it is highly implausible that these are the same person. They have worked together and are perhaps friends, maybe still in contact with each other or maybe not. They likely have the same interests which is why they work on the same articles. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by TerryE (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah, this looks pretty suspicious. The statistical analysis is pretty thorough though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Closing as no action. Statistical "conclusions" that have not been validated by a thorough examination are entitled to no weight. Tim Song (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on what, exactly, is suspicious here? The proliferation of completely unvalidated statistical tools is a serious concern for me. These statistics mean nothing, as far as I can tell. With Keepcalm vs. Retros1mone, the distance between their posts is taken as proof of sockpuppetry. With Keepcalm vs. M1roar, the lack of distance between posts is taken as proof of sockpuppetry. Surely any professional statistician would tell you that you need to start by building a model and defining what you'll consider "positive" vs. "negative" before you apply the test. Instead, TerryE seems to have started with a conclusion (that sockpuppetry was afoot), generated data without clear definitions, and then created endpoints which mold the data to his pre-existing conclusion. This is data dredging - you've generated data from people you suspect to be sockpuppets, and then pointed to that same pattern as characteristic of sockpuppetry. We really need a better article on testing hypotheses suggested by the data. Keepcalm has already acknowledged a link to Retros1mone. I'm not really seeing anything convincing between Keepcalm and M1roar. I will acknowledge that I've co-edited articles with Keepcalm, I will not act as an uninvolved admin here, and if the clerk/checkuser determination is to go forward then that's fine. But we really need to apply a bit more critical thought to these sorts of quantitative trappings. The uncontrolled, naive application of statistics is notorious for leading intelligent people to erroneous conclusions. MastCell Talk 04:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * per MastCell. I'm ignoring the statistical evidence, as they have no scientific basis behind them. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)