Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steeletrap/Archive

21 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

of 1339 article and article talk page edits made by MilesMoney, 65% (536/1339) are on pages in common with Steeletrap.

Of 94 edits at AN/I - a 100% overlap on discussions with Steeletrap.

At AfDs, a 100% agreement - within a short time after Steeletrap nominated the articles for deletion.

At SPI discussions - 100% backing by Steeletrap against accusations regarding Miles Money.

At Wiki-Checker, identical times for editing indicative of the same time zone. http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Steeletrap&l=3650 http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=MilesMoney&l=3650]

One may look at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe to see this interaction

In short - agreement as to editing times, edits, language, and a 65% connection in Mainspace, and a 100% correleation on noticeboard discussions. Collect (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence:  with diffs  and  7 minutes apart. Followed by each one having one more diff one minute apart and  forming a "conversation".

At AN/I followed by

Also Steeletrap complaint about Binksternet followed in two minutes by MilesMoney at  followed in one minute by   Steeletrap again. Followed, after an intervening additional edit by ST, with again by MM.

with MM continuing against Binksternet ... followed by

For another page (I do not wish to list dozens from each page) Steeletrap adds "Anarcho-Capitalism". Binksternet changes it to  ""Austrian School" and MilesMoney than changes it back to "Anarcho-Capitalism" a short time later.  The accounts routinely appear to back each other's edits.

has MilesMoney adding a section. shows a deletion by Arzel 3 minutes later -- and then shows Steeletrap three minutes later reverting the removal of MilesMoney's edit there.

shows MilesMoney's edit to an article talk page '' I just wish you had justified the changes. For example, you took out the "serious racist event" quote, but it's entirely legitimate''. Less than an hour later, Steeletrap arrives  ''How exactly is this POV? An RS (the SPLC) called the event racist. We report, you decide. ''

I can furnish about 70 more such coincidences  Collect (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Anent personal attacks: I have been involved in a negligible number of articles in common with either person, and the report has no animus or resentment about any article inherent -- in fact I basically have not edited in the area of "libertarianism" to any extent at all. Out of about 17,500 article and article talk page edits from me, I overlap with Steeletrap on 25 article and article talk page edits. 59 of my edits are on pages in common with MilesMoney. My interaction with either has been fairly negligible, in fact. (figure under 1/3 of 1 per cent) (using Editor Interaction Tool as I can't spend hours counting every article - any errors are in that tool). Collect (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Anent use of "conform" I checked -- both users use "conform" in about 2% of their edit summaries (trusting the count from Wiki-Checker and not counting a huge number missing any summary at all) ... I use it in 1 out of my last thousand, and a bunch of other editors checked seem to average at less than 2 per thousand. The person who noted this may well be on to something -- people do not remember to use different personas when writing edit summaries. Belchfire used it in about 1% of edit summaries over an extended period. (removed - but one who comments on this page) zero times per thousand (just to show I checked a very wide range of editors here). I invite anyone to see how common a 2% usage is. Collect (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Anent figures as requested, Steeletrap in article edit summaries used "conform" 30 times in 900 edits. This is a statistically significant number, and is, in fact, higher than 2% at 3.3%. The number is high enough that using the tradition square root approximation is valid, and thus the expected range is 1.4% to 5%. MilesMoney has 5 uses in about 380 edits (in each case I try to avoid edits which either do not have any edit summary or show no more than an abbreviation etc.) This shows an expected value of .5% to about 2.7% roughly speaking -- it is lower than much but not all of the Steeletrap range, but both are well about anyone else I looked at. Collect (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Anent claims about not knowing statistics -- I only had 12 college level maths courses. In a sample size of 1000, there is a statistically significant difference between 800 incidents and 920 incidents. Really -- that difference is gigantic, indeed. Collect (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The request (insinuation that I took basic arithmetic at MIT, etc.) is not worthy of response other than to note that it may show bad faith on the part of the person making such innuendoes. This board is not the place for such badinage whatsoever. Collect (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
Regarding OP's "Statistics" Several examples of statistical ineptness above, and I'll cover a few below.


 * Collect's original claim omitted the actual percentage points of how often Miles and I use the term "conformed", merely stating that they were both 'about 2%'. The actual percentage points are 3.3% (me) and 1.3% (Miles), for a percentage differences of 254%. (If you think the raw percentage point gap is informative, please see the stats lesson below.)
 * Even if he is rounding off to the nearest percentage point*, which, per high school stats, is not what one should do when dealing with small percentage points, my percentage of "conforms" is 3% and Miles' 1%. Hilariously, that's a 300% gap, even bigger than the more precise one.
 * Miles has only used "conformed" five times ever, which is far too small a sample size to draw the inferences Collect wants to.
 * That the percentage point likelihood of x falls within the range of y (I'm referring to the type of range Collect used stata or whatever to derive) is not remotely compelling evidence that x and y are caused by the same thing.
 * Miles has only used "conformed" five times ever, which is far too small a sample size to draw the inferences Collect wants to.
 * That the percentage point likelihood of x falls within the range of y (I'm referring to the type of range Collect used stata or whatever to derive) is not remotely compelling evidence that x and y are caused by the same thing.
 * That the percentage point likelihood of x falls within the range of y (I'm referring to the type of range Collect used stata or whatever to derive) is not remotely compelling evidence that x and y are caused by the same thing.

clarification on how stats works Contrary to what Collect (clearly) implies above, percentage point gaps are uniformative. If (for example) I had said "conform" 1% of the time and Miles said it 0.1% of the time, there would be a very small percentage point difference (0.9%, but this would be utterly irrelevant. What's relevant is the percentage difference, which would be a colossal 1000%.

Notes in the margin Collect has misrepresented my remarks on his talk page, by deleting my comment while keeping the rest of the conversation. Oddly, he claims I said the opposite of what I said (i.e. that percentage point rather than percentage differences are what matter), both on his page and above.

Note on claims about qualifications Moreover, appeals to authority based on the number of math classes one has taken, and the "fact" that one has allegedly attended MIT, are irrelevant. And in any case, such a claim is as unverifiable as it is uninformative. (What type of classes were these? Arithmetic? Algebra? High level calculus/diff equations? The latter stuff typically have little to do with statistics, and much more to do with deductive reasoning skills, as presumably all math majors would know.)

You won't see me stoop to such tactics; I'm not flaunting the fact that I have Ph.Ds in statistics with a specialty in detecting WP sockpuppets) from MIT, Cal Tech, every Ivy League school, every major school in the UCalifornia system, UVA, Michigan, and the University of Chicago. Steeletrap (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm the Pope. Steeletrap (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Traditionally one comes to SPI with at least a few diffs. Can you provide any evidence, besides edit overlap statistics and similarities in editing times, that support that these users are the same person? - MrX 20:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Having had the unfortunate experience of seeing a fair bit of the interactions on libertarian articles, at ANI and so on, I suspect this is more a case of meatpuppetry than socking. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the CU's request for additional information, here are some diffs that should help:
 * Example of tag-team editing at Thomas DiLorenzo:


 * Example of tag-team editing at Efforts to impeach Barack Obama:


 * Examples (3) of tag-team editing at Murray Rothbard: ; ;


 * Example of tag-team editing at Ludwig von Mises Institute:


 * Also note the propensity of both accounts to use variants of the peculiar language "conform" or "conforming to source" in edit summaries:


 * Steeletrap:


 * Milesmoney:
 * Roccodrift (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The personalities of Steeltrap and MilesMoney differ considerably. Miles has self-described as a libertarian and Steele has self-described as progressive. And I don't think meatpupperty is a problem because there is no evidence that one recruited the other. If WP:TAGTEAM is the problem, then it should be addressed in another forum. – S. Rich (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we would certainly expect some differences in personality by a carefully-orchestrated sock, wouldn't we? Particularly if the two accounts are being used (as they clearly are) to ram in edits over the objections of other users.  This is a 5-month-old pattern of tag-teaming that deserves careful scrutiny.  Roccodrift (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The evidence invoked is pathetic. Miles and I tend to agree on content disputes and use the term "conform to source material" to describe some of our edits (this is a term I actually adopted from SPECIFICO; is he also a sock?) I am happy to admit to an IP screen or anything that will resolve this matter. (I will even privately call or contact an admin, so long as s/he agrees to keep my identity confidential, and hope Miles will agree to do the same thing.) I want collect banned for making damaging charges without evidence. Steeletrap (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, this SPI isn't damaging to your reputation, and I highly doubt it's going to go anywhere. I've been watching the two of you for at least a couple of months, and it's very clear to me that you aren't the same person. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

'Evidence' implies several other users 'socks. CMDC, Binksternet, and Srich -- who any competent user could discern are not socks -- all fit most of Collect's 'evidence' for socking. They have 100% overlap on all recent MM Anis, 100% overlap in participation in all the AfDs to which Collect references, 100% conformity in their votes on said AfDs, repeated edits within a minute or so, huge overlap on pages edited since MM got on the scene, and so forth. While we tend to agree on content disputes, there are also many examples of Miles and I disagreeing -- e.g. on the Rand Paul page, regarding whether to add a section about his alleged plagiarism. Note on WP:Competence Since this entire discussion is a personal attack -- alleging that I am lying to the community by misrepresenting myself as Miles -- I feel it is warranted to call out the incompetence of User:Collect (see WP:Competence for a good essay, often cited by members of the community, on the problem this presents). He is incompetent in various respects, but the specific incompetence on display here is an inability to evaluate evidence, which is pathetically weak and wholly circumstantial, and needs to be rock-solid before making such allegations. (moreover, the "logical" standards he uses here are applied inconsistently, as they imply that several other users who frequent libertarian pages are socks (see above)). This incompetence has led to harassment (that's what a false personal charge aimed at sanctioning a user amounts to), and it needs to be called out. Steeletrap (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Steeletrap has mentioned me and two other editors, it's easy enough to note that three of us have been around for years and our comments are similar because they support long held Wikipedia policies which we feel Steeletrap and Miles Money have been violating. Steeletrap came in April 16 and AfD'd an article on the same day as started editing under Steeletrap handle. MilesMoney came in July 15, and started working on articles Steeletrap was involved with and has continued to do so. It could be MilesMoney was recruited for this purpose. In any case both are quite sophisticated in the use of Wikipedia and both love to accuse editors who criticize or disagree with them of "incompetence".
 * Finally, note that the articles we work on are under Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions so even obvious meat puppetry that undermines policy - especially in WP:BLP and most articles are BLPs - are quite problematic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Competence is a HUGE concern in these articles, and I appreciate Miles' drawing our attention to the issue. Steeletrap (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how you count percentages, but User:SPECIFICO uses "conform" a lot too (see last 500 edit summaries) and they may have picked it up from him. (I myself have.) Unless of course they're all SPECIFICO, but I won't bother to put together some anecdotal evidence that comes to mind even as that thought springs to life for the very first time. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The percentage stuff smacks of a lack of understanding of basic statistics. Please provide the actual percentage poins, rather than saying "around 2%". That could potentially be a huge percentage difference, which is what matters, not the fact that both percentage points are "low." (E.g. the difference between 2.3% and 2.0% is as substantial as that between 92% and 80%) Looking at the difference in percentage points declaring it small is totally wrongheaded; you could say that "conform" rates of 0.3% and 0.001% are "close" by this goof-logic.

Well...looks like meatpuppetry to me. Steeletrap putting a deletion tag up on an article almost immediately after they started their account. Steeletrap showing up at SPECIFICO areas of interest, and many of those articles were generally quiet before SPECIFICO arrived. MilesMoney shows up after Steeltrap to assist in various areas.--MONGO 16:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you also going to accuse Bink, Rich and Carol of meat-puppeting? They have consistently voted together on AfDs. Please try to be logically consistent. Steeletrap (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Much too much of this commentary does not matter in the least. Please look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/guide. WP:SPI/Cs, please give us all a beautiful Christmas Present and close the case. Thanks – S. Rich (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Rschen7754 21:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This SPI is quickly getting out of hand. Please note that I will start blocking any editor who continues the sniping going on at this page, whether you are accused, whether you are innocent of socking, or you are just a bystander. This is your only warning. Rschen7754 01:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol unrelated.svg|16px|link=|alt=]] Unrelated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the worst case scenario, this is meatpuppetry, which can be handled outside SPI. Rschen7754 01:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

09 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * 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. 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:
 * Steeletrap:


 * 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.

- 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, 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:

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 - MrX 15:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Summary


 * - 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":
 * 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.   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., 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)
 * Of course I deny it. But I have a couple questions for you, User:Adjwilley, that I think will shed light on your suitability to be an administrator. 1) What do you think the odds are that I am one or more of these socks, based on the above evidence? (Including the fact that the IP is editing from a foreign country.) 2) Do you think a denial is compelling evidence of innocence? Steeletrap (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! "The best defense is a good offense."  Adjwilley asked you a perfectly reasonable question, and you respond with an attack on his or her capacity to be an administrator, as if being educated in statistical analysis is a prerequisite for being a Wikipedia sysop.  Frankly, I'd rather have admins with a good amount of common sense. A nose for sniffing out irregularities and inconsistencies is good too, but that comes with Wiki-experience, whether one is an admin or not. BMK (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Competence is a serious issue that affects WP in serious ways. See WP:Competence. The fact that you apparently think that raw intuition is a substitute for statistical analysis in SPIs is very telling. It reminds me of President Bush's statement that Putin must be a good man, because he saw into Putin's heart. We need admins who believe in evidence, rather than in fortune telling and tea-leaf reading, on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to believe that there is only one way to measure competence, and only one legitimate method to reach valid conclusions. I'm not suggesting that logical and deductive evaluation of evidence will (or should) be replaced as the primary pathway to determining empirical facts, but I do suggest that you look a bit outside your field and do some reading about intuition and adaptive unconscious and other non-deductive ways by which we can determine outcomes with a surprising degreee of accuracy, depending, of course, on the intelligence and perceptiveness of the individual involved. (I recommend Gladwell's Blink and Gigerenzer's Gut Feelings as an introduction to the subject.) The admin or editor who can say, based upon their experience, "There's something rotten in Denmark", and be shown to be correct in that feeling is a valuable asset to the community.  In the real world, I'd wager that more fortunes are made on that basis than are built on deductive statistical analysis of reams of economic data. BMK (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, Bush was an idiot, anyone can look into Putin's eyes and see the dark soul of a KGB man and autocrat. BMK (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bush was a disaster. But I'd take Bush as an admin over this crowd any day of the week. Steeletrap (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Compared to the average WP admin, Bush is exceedingly hard working, intelligent, intuitive, intellectually curious, and possesses a sterling academic record. Steeletrap (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not share your inordinately, and I believe unjustifiedly, low opinion of Wikipedia's admins. In my experience, they fall pretty much into a standard bell curve: a few very poor ones, some who leave something to be desired, a plurality of perfectly acceptable ones, some who are excellent, and a few extremely good ones. Bush, were he an admin, would have been desysoped pretty quickly, unless Dick Cheney and Karl Rove were Arbs to protect him. BMK (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A bell shaped curve is not what's to be expected or accepted of a group that's been selected according to the standards and scrutiny of WP Admins. I happened to notice that you leave a leading space after the colons indenting your writings here.  That was one of the factors that was cited against Steeletrap.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfA process has changed over the years, so not every admin had to run the same gantlet. Some older admins were basically handed the bit upoin request, with a minimum of scrutiny.  Given this your explanation of why a bell curve is not appropriate for admins doesn't really hold water. (In fact, I'm not sure of its validity even if the conditions for all admins had been the same, but then again, I've been told that I'm "statistically illiterate", so what the hell do I know?) Oh, and about the colons, you're forgetting one major factor: I've never had a fight with Binksternet, and certainly never called him "Binky." BMK (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the comments posted above by me and by all of the other editors above who exposed the defects in MrX's evidence. Especially unconvincing is the specious bit you just repeated about the use of the unauthorized diminutive that upsets Binksternet, as has repeatedly proclaimed to friend, foe and future harassers alike.   SPECIFICO  talk  04:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And you, of course, are a totally and completely  unbiased  party here, no friend to Steeletrap. simply an outside voice able to evaluate the evidence without prejudice of any kind. To my view, I see no real hardcore "exposure of defects" in the comments above, what I see are expressions of incredulity, insults against other editors, and attempts to poison the well. For all the harping on the lack of statistical literacy hereabouts, neither you nor Steeletrap have presented any kind of systematic analysis of the evidence, you've just waved your hands, tapped the magic wand against the top hat and called it insufficient. Who knows, maybe that'll be enough.  It's interesting. though. that the Norwegian IPs, who appeared to have any number of addresses available to them, stopped their harassment of Binksternet just when Steeletrap re-entered the scene, almost as if they weren't needed any more. Of course, Steeletrap may not be smart enough to post through foreign IPs hundreds or thousands of miles away from her home base, I donn't know, but she certainly acts as if she's the smartest person in the room at any one time. BMK (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely the burden is not on me to prove my innocence? Is this Wikipedia or Westeros? In any case, it has been repeatedly pointed out that thousands upon thousands of users refer to Wikipedia as WP and use a space after the colon. Moreover, the b-word has been used repeatedly to describe Binksternet. He brings this on himself to some extent by discussing it on his user page, and mentioning how much he hates it. Steeletrap (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe you are correct, the harassment is clearly the fault of the victim. I suggest tha Binksteret be idef blocked for complaining about not liking being called certain things, thus encouraging editors such as Steeletrap and the Norwegian IPs to call him that.Could we please have a list of every editor who has called Binksternet "Binky"?  That is, if this page has enough capacity to contain all those "thousands of thousands" of names. If you don't have time to provide aii 10^6 of them, I'll take a thousand, or a couple of hundred. or even 10. BMK (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The following users have called Bink Binky: SPECIFICO, MilesMoney, Pumpkinsky, Cloonmore, Resolution Man, Grapestomper (see the hatted section at the bottom of the page), Brangifier, Bzuk, Mix Munus, and BannedEditor (yes, that's a real name -- see "Block Review:Kumioko/IPs on the linked page). That is 10 examples, gathered from only a few minutes of research. And it doesn't include IPs. People shouldn't call him the b-word. But he makes himself an easy target by being so hypersensitive about it, and noting his aversion to it on his user page. (Incidentally: you are trivializing actual harassment and betraying your male privilege by equating use of the b-word to harassment.) Steeletrap (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And you are betraying your bias that the only legitimate definition of "harassment" is of a female by a male. 'Taint so, McGee -- and let's turn things around: if I said that sexily-dressed women are making themselves an easy target for sexual harassment, would that be an argument you would accept? My guess is that it would not be (and, of course, should not be), and yet you have no problem in arguing that Binksternet does precisely the same thing by making his aversion to "Binky" public knowledge. I suggest you take a good hard look at your double standard. BMK (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is grotesque. Analogizing sexual harassment to use of the b-word? Steeletrap (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And your reaction is very revealing. My analogy did not seek to equalize two different kinds of harassment, it sought to make it possible for you to see that your behavior, and that of the Norwegian IPs (who may or may not be you), cannot be excused by the behavior of Binksternet in making public something he didn't like to be done to him. You made the argument that by doing so, he left himself open to harassment, but vehemently reject precisely the same argument in regard to sexual harassment.  The two behaviors are not equal to each other but they are precisely and exactly analogous.  (I think you may need to bone up on the meaning of the word.) Harassment comes in all sizes, shapes and varieties, and it can cause distress for the harassed that is disproportionate to the provocation as it is perceived by an outsider.  You rightfully reject the argument "Oh she's blowing things out of proportion, what was done to her was insignificant and she's overreacting to it.  Besides, she brought it on herself by dressing that way" and yet you cannot (or will not) see that you are making the same argument in regards to Binksternet - he's overreacting, calling him "Binky" isn't really a big deal, and besides he brought it on himself. You claim for yourself and your gender a privilege that you explicitly deny to others.  For whatever reason, you feel empathy for a harassed woman (any harassed woman), but not for Binksternet, who is your colleague on this great project.  That is, I think, rather sad. I think this discussion between us is done, I see little value in continuing to coverse with someone whose mind is so closed. BMK (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BMK, you seem pretty pompous and confident in your presentation of logical argument via the analogy you've attempted to make to sexual harassment. Analogies for argumentation are tricky and difficult to make, yours is flawed one, it is a broken analogy and your pompousness in its "accuracy and precision" aren't warranted. (For one, the user specifically states he didn't like to be called a certain nickname. A woman on receiving end of sexual harassment doesn't go around asserting "Hey, for anyone listening, by the way, I don't like being sexually harassed." [Your equivalency argument pretends she does, or overlooks she doesn't.] Also, sexual harassment is a big thing, there are laws protecting victims. Your equivalency argument, it can cause distress for the harassed that is disproportionate to the provocation as it is perceived by an outsider doesn't wash, but again you pretend it does or overlook that it doesn't. There are other flaws as well. Broken analogy.) Your tone of victory in argumental refutation isn't justified, and WP isn't known for being a crucible for logical debate anyway, so IMO you shouldn't be trying so hard. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is for good reason that I have nicknamed WP 'revenge of the C-students.' The analogy is totally facile because blaming someone who has been sexually harassed is victim blaming, and being called "binky" online doesn't make one a victim. In any case, now that I've demonstrated that Bink has been repeatedly called binky, by a host of other users, can this case be put to rest? Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

IHTS, you really should learn to use only words and ideas that you understand the meaning of. Steeletrap, you're clearly a very smart person, so smart that you're used to being the smartest person in the room, and you no longer allow yourself or your views to be challenged by anything anyone says. You've became arrogant, complacent and comfortable in your hypocrisy, which is a shame. I have hopes that someday you'll realize that you actually don't know everything there is to know, and that other people have valuable information and opinions which would be useful to you if you would only let yourself be open to them. If we both stick around Wikipedia long enough, perhaps we'll both experience that sea change in your outlook. BMK (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As a goodbye exercise for you, ponder this: The Balkans are the mess they are in large part because each individual ethnic group believes that their suffering is worse that the suffering of every other ethnic group, and this therefore privileges them to mistreat those other groups as revenge and recompense. How does this relate to our little discussion here? BMK (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The quintessential WP admin characteristics--laziness, ignorance, groupthink, deference to the unfounded speculations of Internet "friends", and a tendency to kneejerk judgment--have led this obviously groundless case to go on with no resolution. In order to terminate it, I consent to an IP check. Such a check, as I understand it, would secure the privacy of my IP address (note: I do NOT consent to a release of my IP). But it would also ensure that statistical illiterates, who think the above evidence is compelling, have definitive evidence that I have never used any of the IP addresses in question. Steeletrap (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * CONSENT FOR IP CHECK GRANTED

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!   ·  &#9993;  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!   ·  &#9993;  21:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - Checkuser will not run checks to link accounts and IP addresses. Such cases have to be decided solely on behavioural evidence. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - I generally have great respect for your judgement, and will speak to the SPI team about this case later tonight. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 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!   ·  &#9993;  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)
 * I've blocked 88.88.22.29 to match the other IP blocks. I've also issued a 1 week block for Steeletrap. There are a number of similarities presented here that makes me confident that Steeletrap was editing these IPs, as well as switching up the writing style to mislead. Mike V • Talk 03:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

1. Steeletrap uses phrase "notable" ,
 * IP uses "notable"

2. Steeletrap uses "a few words", on talk:
 * IP uses "a few words", on talk:

3. Steeletrap was edit warring to insert " including opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage" ,
 * IP inserted "notably opposing same-sex marriage and abortion rights"

4. Steeletrap was blocked yesterday.
 * IP started editing 17 hours later. – Lionel(talk) 14:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Steeletrap's in your face style seems to attract socking allegations like flies. "Notable" is maybe the most common word on edit summaries and talk pages around here. Not exactly a smoking gun. "A few words" on my search engine returns a quick hundred million hits. And the IP address, apparently at a public computer at a university, has a long history. Is it all Steeletrap? Please improve the behavioral evidence. Disclosure: This user is on my watch list from years ago and seems to attract specious socking allegations now and then.  SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't buy SPECIFICO's argument that the IP "has a long history". It made 22 edits between 2005 and 2009, then was completely inactive until yesterday when it started making edits to the last article and talk page where Steeletrap was active before her block. It continued the same argument on the talk page that Steeletrap had been making for the past 2 weeks: that the organization's political activity should be summarized in the "lede". ~Awilley (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion who is this IP. I'm just saying we need specific evidence, because this is apparently a public IP with a long history. I didn't mean to imply it's one user with a long history. But it is long, just not continuously active on WP.  SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - Similar positions and writing style, on the same article just after the master account was block? . Please block the IP for a few days to prevent further evasion. The master account has a fairly extensive block log so a longer block is in order. I'd recommend a few months. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * IP and Steeltrap blocked two weeks. I don't see this as a Joejob, but as pretty straight sockpuppetry to evade a block.  I do get what you are saying Specifico and I'm quite familiar with the filing party, but looking at all the evidence links them up reasonably well. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)