Archives

I II III IV V VI

I'd like to get to the bottom of the ip editing of IHA but struggle to do that on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous. replylink doesn't work on that page and i get nothing but edit conflicts. Can we have a brief chat here where you point me to direct evidence that the IPs that we know for a fact were used by IHA (2601:2C0:C300:B7::/64, anything else?) before they created that account were used to edit anything related to Williamson? Vexations (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vexations, I can certainly try :). There's both a behavioural and a technical aspect of this. The technical part is that on IPv6 ranges, it's common for individual people to remain on the same /64 subrange for extended periods of time. Querying WHOIS pages will give you far larger ranges, but many ISPs assign /64 or /60 blocks to individual users. All of the edits on that 64 exhibit the same distinct left-wing point of view and rather aggressive writing style, with the early edits often including serious BLP violations ([1][2][3][4][5][6] etc.). A day after the last such edit (all of which were clearly made by the same person) is made, an IP from the /64 opens a section on Talk:Proud Boys, again with a similarly aggressive style: [7]. The IP continues engaging in this discussion while simultaneously discovering GorillaWarfare's talk page – the conversation there finally leads to the IP editor creating the IHA account. The probability that, between that last BLP post and the opening of the proud boys discussion, the /64 was reassigned to a person sharing the same political convictions and editing in a very similar manner seems infinitesimal. I hope this makes sense. Blablubbs|talk 21:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[8] was what I was looking for. Thanks. That doesn't show that IHA was socking though, does it? We're very sure that all of 2601:2c0:c300:b7::/64's contributions were made by the same editor, but they stopped editing as an IP on October 22, with one exception, [9] which confirms they're the same editor. Are we in agreement so far? Now where is the connection to another sockpuppet? All we have incontrovertible evidence for is that the same editor that edits as IHA started editing as an IP on 27 May 2020, here. Vexations (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: sorry, it seems like I misread your original comments at the SPI to mean that you aren't convinced that the entire /64 is IHA – my apologies for the overly lengthy explanation in that case. No, that part doesn't inherently show IHA was socking (and I wasn't trying to imply that in my original comment at SPI. As for where is the connection to another sockpuppet: There is no single piece of smoking gun evidence here, but there are lots of behavioural links; many of them are unconvincing on their own, but strongly suggest a connection when combined. Many of them were pointed out in the SPI, including in GeneralNotability's closing statement. Not all socks have strong overlap – many of them can only be connected to each other by showing a preponderance of similarities that makes the likelihood of two distinct individuals being at work rather small. Combined with the technical evidence involved here, that probability strikes me as rather small in IHAs case. Blablubbs|talk 16:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's done is done. I don't think I have much to contribute to this particular case, except express my concern over the mental health of a real person. That is something we should never forget. I -am- alarmed by what passes as evidence at SPI and what I think is misuse of SPIs to get rid of an opponent or a problematic editor. I regularly edit in difficult topic areas and it would be very easy to have me blocked as a sock with similar "evidence". I'm going to have to very carefully consider how to protect my self against such accusations and the resulting outing. I meet a lot of "how likely is THAT?" criteria, share a router with other editors, etc.. Closing this account, improving my security and starting over would just make me even more suspect of course. I have never socked, do not want to, never will, but remain vulnerable to such claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I don't think the suggestion of malicious intent on the part of the filer – or those supporting this block – is a fair one. I for one have never interacted with IHA, I don't edit AMPOL (neither am I American); I do not have any personal, political, or editorial gripes with them. This case has been reviewed by two SPI clerks and two checkusers, as well as other users familiar with sockpuppetry; none of them have voiced objections to the block. As far as I can tell, most of those came from editors who aren't particularly active in sock-related areas but know IHA from elsewhere. Yes, sockpuppet investigations aren't an exact science: If we wanted 100% conclusive evidence that two accounts are run by the same person all the time, we would have to introduce extremely intrusive technical measures – and even then, some cases would still have to be decided through behavioural evaluation. Yes, individual pieces of evidence may be very far from conclusive on their own. And yes, it comes down to probability in some cases. But people don't push the block button at random – GeneralNotability has explicitly said that he went into his case review with the expectation that he would be unblocking IHA and didn't because a preponderance of the evidence suggests that IHA and SA are indeed related. I wish that this wasn't the evidentiary standard we have to use, but it simply is. And from working in this area quite extensively and knowing many of the people involved, I can tell you that the people involved at SPI take that responsibility very seriously.

I feel genuinely sorry if this has impacted IHA's mental health – no matter the facts of this case, I really do. You'll just have to believe me when I say that I am 100% convinced that no one involved in the outcome of this case took their actions out of a desire to hurt or "get rid of" IHA. Best, Blablubbs|talk 17:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thanks to you, Blablubbs! Your clear instructions were easy to follow. Let me know how my requested edit looks (I put it on the talk page following directions from several resources you pointed me to) & if you think I could make any improvements. Sincere regards, Snyderlab|talk McGuire at Stanford Snyderlab (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi McGuire at Snyderlab, I'm happy if I could help and thanks for complying with our COI guidelines. There's something slightly off about the template you used; {{connected contributor}} is for declaring the connection itself and should go to the top of the talk page, using the correct parameters (see the documentation of the template). To request edits, you should use {{Request edit}} instead; I suggest using WP:ERW, which simplifies this. I'll try to have a look at the article talk page, but can't promise anything. On a sidenote, you can use four tildes (like this: ~~~~) to sign your posts. To ping someone, type {{u|Username goes here}} and sign your message in the same edit. I hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Blablubbs, I see where I may have put the connected contributor info too many times! I am figuring this out. I only wanted to add three words to the 'entrepreneur' section of Michael P. Snyder's page (with factual references), but I'm not sure if it matters at this point since most of the page was deleted after I added the three words.

McGuire at Stanford Snyderlab (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Draft:Michael P. Snyder draftified because it had no references. McGuire given some guidance at Teahouse about how to proceed. Briefly, the entire article needs a major revision to be about Snyder (with references) rather than lengthy descriptions of his research. David notMD (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you got added to the trainee list. Welcome aboard, glad to have more hands around to help! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the crew. The job comes with a free fez! Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RoySmith and Cabayi, it's much appreciated! I look forward to working with you :). Blablubbs|talk 11:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]