Technical 13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

29 June 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• 3gg5amp1e (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed without a single doubt by technical and behavioral means by several Arbitrators, which may or may not comment here. Technical/Behavioral details available to functionaries on request. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I am formally opening an SPI on a matter that seems to be discussed publicly yet decentrally at User_talk:Begoon#Your_RfA_comment, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat_chat#Questionable_idea and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RexxS#Oppose. I believe that providing evidence either needs to be done entirely privately, or here.
Ping: Pppery, Begoon, Serial Number 54129, Nick. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to evidence request: This was linked at User_talk:Begoon#Your_RfA_comment: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Pppery&users=Technical+13&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RhinosF1, who is currently on wikibreak, would like to note that ArbCom has been informed about this SPI, because it was them who blocked Technical 13. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the signatures, I have independently noticed the similarity when looking for diffs. The signatures can be found at Special:Diff/667365777 and Special:Diff/891575191. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

• See also User talk:Pppery#Previous account, User talk:Gerda Arendt#Thanks_for_your_thanks, and User_talk:MPS1992#To_explain_my_comment_at_RFA. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This is probably going to be all I'll add here, because of time constraints. I only voiced my suspicions because, being very familiar with T13, I have become convinced that this is the same person, and it upset me that an RfA seemed likely to be derailed in this way. Providing diffs is difficult in a case like this because my conclusion comes from observing long-term behaviour and style rather than any specific "smoking gun" edits. Apart from the obvious exact correspondence in areas of interest between the accounts, factors include a fascination with odd, 'templatey' signatures, and a peculiar stubbornness about them; the timing of the accounts, idiosyncracies like a preoccupation with 'fixing' LISTGAP 'issues', and strange fixation with things like TfD notices always being visible on articles, at all costs. Mostly, though, one has to actually study the edits and interactions for a longish period, and I realise that is a large task. There are some unlikely overlaps in the interaction analyser, despite QEDK's good point about prolific editing. I understand that if no technical data still exists from the T13 account it may be very difficult to prove a connection, and if this is insufficient then so be it. -- Begoon 22:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• From what I can tell, Pppery edited regularly from an IP address for a year and a half (starting in September 2014) before creating the Pppery account; and if that IP was Technical 13 all along they hid it very well. The IP isn't the obvious match that Technical 13's known sock 3gg5amp1e was, and no one suggested at the time that the IP and Technical 13 had any connection; and there were times in October and November 2014 when the IP and Technical 13 were editing near-simultaneously in unrelated areas, which is not impossible but definitely only possible if Technical 13 was already deliberately setting up the groundwork for a future sock that early. At the same time, those overlaps aren't suspiciously frequent, and the deliberate discussions-with-himself that Technical 13 had with 3gg5amp1e never happened with the IP. (Disclaimer: I am not particularly familiar with the history or editing styles of either Technical 13 or Pppery, and claim no expertise at detecting sockpuppets.) Sideways713 (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To avoid accusations of outing, I will confirm that Special:Contributions/66.114.92.11 is indeed me, except for the 2009 edit. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thankyou for that. I'm no expert on IP addresses, but I plugged that one into an IP Address Location and Whois Lookup site, and it said "Baltimore". It was (to me anyway) well known that T13 lived in a US state located well north of Baltimore. Far enough away that I'd say that while your behavior somewhat "rhymes" with his, to me it's not slam-dunk identical, and given location data that is not that close, I'd say we don't have strong enough evidence to confirm any sockpuppetry. Plus I simply hate the idea that somehow if you were confirmed to be a sock, that "fact" would let the 'crats find a reason to pass the recently closed RfA. There isn't any exemption from the Civility policy that lets someone be excused for being uncivil towards a sockpuppet. wbm1058 (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, the IP address is owned by a VPN. Its geolocation is irrelevant, since its user can log in from anywhere in the world and use that IP. Interestingly, using the tools that are built in to the contributions page of any IP, this IP geolocated to New York City (the location of the head office of the company that owns the VPN), somewhere in Kansas, and a town in Massachusetts. Don't take geolocation all that seriously, especially when it's associated with a VPN. Risker (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  So maybe Pppery can help us out by logging out of his VPN? If he always edits through a VPN, that certainly raises the suspicion level. I've never felt the need to edit via a VPN myself. wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  At the risk of outing themselves? 1) A lot of editors edit under VPNs, some due to paranoia, some because it's their choice. 2) If the user does cease to edit from this VPN and move to an undocumented proxy/VPN, how will you determine its genuineness? Either way, it's still Pppery's choice on how they want to prove their innocence, but policy (and law) dictates innocent until proven guilty and we aren't quite there yet. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My goodness, a lot has developed here! The actual story is not that I'm editing through a VPN at all, but instead that the IP has changed hands during the intervening three years. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We know T13's real-life identity. If Pppery is willing to identify himself to the Wikimedia Foundation, then the WMF can definitively tell us whether he is the same person. That would be the easiest way to settle this. wbm1058 (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wbm1058, with the exception of the Board of Trustees members and perhaps a few other volunteers with specific fiduciary responsibilities, nobody identifies to the WMF. That process was deprecated several years ago; they had no way of being certain that any documentation provided to them was linked to any specific account, and even back in the days when they asked for such documentation, it was only examined and then destroyed to avoid retention and security issues. I rather doubt that the WMF would want to change their policy on this, and frankly it isn't worthwhile for a socking allegation. Risker (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I am concerned by the comments below to the effect that obtaining a full response to this request "may take a while" and "would probably be late". From my point of view, this request has an important bearing on the discussion currently taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat. I therefore ask those arbs/CUs able to action this request to please do so as quickly as practicable. I would be grateful to anyone who is able to draw this request to the attention of the relevant people. WJBscribe (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to say that I don't believe Pppery is Technical 13, but I only have my own impressions from my interactions and observations of their edits to go on. I get the impression that Pppery has a strong urge to put everything into the order that they perceive should exist, bordering on compulsiveness (which is what has led to most of the friction between us); but I don't recall ever forming that impression of T13, who tended to focus on slightly different areas as well, if I recall accurately. I can see why editors could form a different impression in good faith, but I think we should always err on the side of innocence where doubt exists. This kind of investigation can be unpleasant for a young, potentially very valuable contributor. --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Pppery has a strong urge to put everything into the order that they perceive should exist, bordering on compulsiveness (which is what has led to most of the friction between us) – excellent assessment which I agree with. You showed your tendency towards this in your efforts to put English-language redirects to a French diving organisation the way you perceived they should exist (or not exist). Technical 13 had a strong desire to be the "technical guru" who provided solutions to everyone, and tried to butt into helping even when he wasn't the most competent person to do the task. Recall that he set up his sock as an editor needing help, so he could then jump in to help his sock implement the technical solutions he wanted, which coincidently were the solutions T13 wanted to implement himself. Pppery may be more competent, or at least I don't see him trying to push to help people do things where he lacks the competence to be the best person to help. wbm1058 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I asked ArbCom to become invloved, I think I should comment. I personally don't know very much about Technical13 due to the fact I was not contributing until after he was banned but I have heard things and from what I can see I think they ARE similarities in T13's and Pppery's actions. I think given the circumstance it's paramount that ArbCom act as quickly as possible and in this case carry out a CU as an arbitration enforcement action proceeding to take the action required. As RexxS is considering withdrawing his RfA, I think ArbCom should ask the Crats to suspend discussion until this case is settled and we know the full facts of Pppery's behaviour with an option to Reopen the RfA for further comment if RexxS allows so people can change comments in light of developments. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I did note that according to T13's self disclosure their birthday is January 15. Looking at Ppp's editing history, we can see that they took an announced wikibreak from 13-17 Jan 2018 ([1] [2]), and from 13 to 16 Jan 2017 ([3] [4]). Ppp does not appear to have edited at all in January 2016.
  That's about the best behavioral evidence that I found on any project and across all three registered accounts and the IP, at least as far as specifics goes. There's other stuff, but probably all at some level reasonably explainable as happenstance and/or generic similarities between two highly technically inclined users. I'm not familiar enough with either user to comment on the broad similarities. GMG^talk 18:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if you assume in good faith it really was his birthday, and not an excuse used to buy time to figure out something he didn't understand. Personally, my birthday is not a particularly special day, and I've probably more often than not edited as usual on my b-day.
  • Because of school, Pppery will not be very active on weekdays, but should be back editing enthusiastically on weekends (except when doing homework or on vacation). Technical 13 was a student too (an older student, I believe). I suppose it's possible he's still in school, as one of those "professional students" who never graduates. wbm1058 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  T13 edited on their birthday every year anyway. Pppery, in contrast, has taken two wikibreaks and been active this year. If it had been consistent, I'd probably agree with you but I see more of a difference. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah. Good observation and something I should have checked myself. Anyway, I wasn't saying it was damning evidence, just that it was probably the best I found. GMG^talk 20:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a regular at SPI, but I find it odd an SPI is filed on vague evidence. It's not convincing enough for me to endorse a CU, if I were a clerk. Let alone CU data would be stale and meaningless, so it would be more of a fishing expedition than anything else. Also, per Rob below, given there is nothing in the archives to support this allegation, I'm not convinced Pppery is a sock of anyone. I'll change my mind when more definitive behavioral similarities come to light.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 This SPI does not feel right. Pppery has several years in WP, thousands of edits to WP in very technical areas (which WP really needs), a talk page with lots of "thank yous" from other editors for his technical support and help; including "tireless worker" barnstars from senior admins. We should follow the classy lead of RexxS above. We should power-down here as I am starting to think WP is going to owe Pppery a major apology for the way they have been handled from this RfA. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, the SPI itself seems to be a necessary measure to prevent an uncontrolled spreading of aspersions and vague allegations over multiple Wikipedia pages, at a time when "Technical 13" had already been mentioned by multiple editors^[1][2] as alleged sockmaster, and when people already started to provide their perceived evidence on various pages. This SPI is meant to bring an end to the matter.
  As Technical 13 has explicitly been "denied the right to any sort of clean start", the mere allegation of being the same person is an allegation of severe misconduct. If this SPI ends without a block, allegations without new evidence must stop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Additional information needed - Please provide evidence when filing cases. qedk (t 桜 c) 20:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @ToBeFree: While you've linked me an interaction editor link, quite honestly, for an editor as prolific as Technical 13, the overlap is going to be huge, the only thing I've picked up is the proficiency in wikicode/js/any technical stuff and that the editor came after T13 was banned, but unfortunately, that is not at all close to what evidence warrants. Take your time, compile a few diffs that show the editors have a definite connection. There's no rush. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Begoon: I understand that your accusation is based on long-term observation but I think if you're claiming that there are unlikely overlaps that you have observed, you can surely substantiate them. I don't need a smoking gun, but a general way forward would be good, like the point raised about the similar signatures (maybe a red herring). --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - recusing on this one myself because I voted in the RFA that brought this forward; however, I too have ensured that both Arbcom and the functionaries mailing list is aware of this case. QEDK, the experienced users (none of whom are particularly SPI regulars) who are red-flagging this all the way up is probably sufficient to keep this one on the books for now, but you were right to ask for further details. It may take a while for an arb/CU to respond. Risker (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I thank RhinosF1 for their e-mail to the Arbitration Committee but note such communication is somewhat premature. If Pppery is confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Technical 13, the account will be blocked as a sockpuppet and Technical 13 reminded that they need to appeal the Arbitration Committee motion directly to the Arbitration Committee (typically, but not necessarily with their primary (Technical 13) account). The Arbitration Committee would only need to become involved with this case should Pppery be confirmed as a sockpuppet of Technical 13, and even then, only so they can be aware of the last time block evasion occurred for the purposes of considering an appeal by Technical 13. Nick (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: T13 and their sock are definitely stale, a CU can check this account and they won't find data to go on. But CUs familiar with T13 can still weigh in (but that would probably be late as Risker said) about T13's behaviour and socking pattern, which makes it all the more necessary that accusations be supplemented with concrete evidence. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The Arbitration Committee is aware of this investigation and is currently searching our own archives to determine if we have any information to contribute to it. We should have a statement shortly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arbitration Committee has conducted a search of our archives and located all information known to the Committee during the original Technical 13 socking. We have determined that no additional information we have access to supports a finding of sockpuppetry. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note:  24 hours Not much of an evidence to go on here then. Keeping it open for another day if anyone has proper claims. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• qedk, with absolute respect (and apologies well in advance), I have to say that as you participated in the RfA, I don't find it appropriate that you should have involved yourself in clerking this SPI (and/or deciding to keep it open for another day). It's inappropriate anyway to have a long-standing editor be accused of being a sock just because another editor thought so (really?! this is absolute silliness and I'm surprised the arbcom did not step in mid-way); and worse so for an involved editor to be deciding to lengthen this investigation. Close it and please be done with it; Lourdes 03:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lourdes: Just to be clear, I have not done anything not dictated by SPI procedure. This SPI does not pertain to the RfA, they are considered interrelated only due to Pppery having made an oppose but that is not the subject of this SPI, but rather that Pppery is a sock of T13. I have never interacted with Pppery (or even T13, if my memory serves right) before and thus, would think that a recusal would be unnecessary. Where do you draw the line - editing the same page as Pppery, editing the same page as RexxS maybe? I do not get your point at all. And while I do understand your exasperation about respected editors being subjected to SPI, you have to understand, some editors did give inklings of evidence for their accusation, while they may not be solid, I saw enough justification to keep it open in case there is any more evidence to be put forward - as some editors said they were pretty confident it was the same editor. I have no vendetta against Pppery and I've justified each and every statement, where I've said there might or might not be correlation between Pppery and T13, I recommend you to go through them. Either way, I do not enjoy squabbles, and as such, per your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, I will be putting this up to another clerk, but I will not be closing it at this time. They can evaluate if I've been biased and decide accordingly. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note:  Second opinion requested Per above. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note As an uninvolved admin, I have reviewed the data presented and looked at a sample of both users edits, especially where they edited the same talk pages. Even though there is suspicion, I do not see enough evidence to say they are the same person. ARBCOM has looked into it and they do not have anything to show a connection. Based on the information available I am closing this as unlikely them being the same person If new evidence comes to light then that evidence should be presented at an appropriate location. ~ GB fan 11:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]