Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPECIFICO/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

IP138 has inserted themselves in a conversation about inappropriate comments of an editor: User talk:Scjessey. The IP uses Wikipedia jargon and is obviously an experienced editor. I asked them to identify themselves and they refused. This wouldn't be a big deal, but the IP had earlier criticized admin on the same user talk page, and later questioned the same admin, asking why editor Atsme would use him as the "dial-in admin", and saying NeilN issued dismissive warnings here and elsewhere before (at the behest of a sock, no less), and doesn't seem to have the nuance necessary to see what's going on in this topic area. Note that SPECIFICO had used NeilN as their own "dial-in admin" at numerous occasions: Shortly thereafter, on 3 June, NeilN issued a warning to SPECIFICO at WP:ANEW.
 * 26 February: User talk:NeilN/Archive 42
 * 16 March: User talk:NeilN/Archive 43
 * 31 March: User talk:NeilN/Archive 43
 * 9 April: User talk:NeilN/Archive 44
 * 16 May: User talk:NeilN
 * 27 May: User talk:NeilN
 * 29 May: User talk:NeilN, in which SPECIFICO declared In light of your behavior toward me I think you should either stay away from me or seriously reflect upon and reform your approach as manifest in the recent incidents. For my part, I will stop seeking your advice or assistance in your Admin capacity so any pressure or embarrassment that I may have caused you will not recur.

Most recently, the same IP138 picked up a discussion where SPECIFICO left off, continuing SPECIFICO's line of reasoning. This particular back-and-forth was between Atsme and SPECIFICO, making it rather suspicious given the prior mention of Atsme out of nowhere by IP138.

Time-based evidence: IP138 made edits at:
 * 17:55 and 18:35, 12 June 2018, matching a hole in a SPECIFICO editing session at 17:07, 17:11, 17:12, 17:13, 19:29, 19:33
 * 20:12, 13 June 2018, matching a hole in a SPECIFICO editing session at 18:55, 19:04, 19:07, 19:39, 19:46, 19:47, 20:44, 20:46, 20:48, on the same talk page

Full disclosure: I have opened a WP:AE process against SPECIFICO for violating DS in the American Politics area. If they are socking to disparage admins, that will be added to the complaint. If this IP138 affair is totally unrelated, I'll happily withdraw the complaint. — JFG talk 07:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments; glad you have a friend at NASA. Complaint withdrawn. — JFG talk 16:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

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

I particularly enjoyed the bit about the "holes" in my time punch sequence. If it's in a hole, a-HA! She switched to the IP to slip one in. If it's concurrent: a-HA! they're editing AT THE SAME TIME!!.

I'm struck by OP's inability to muster any specific evidence that would not equally apply to a dozen active editors at the American Politics articles. Another curious fact is that the IP editor geolocates to a secure US Government NASA facility -- one that could not be used as a stealth proxy by a little old lady such as myself. And even curiouser is that JFG's editing, until the 2016 election, comprised 12 years of editing largely about the US Space Program topics. So if we're going for "behavioral evidence" this does raise the obvious possibility of a false flag operation by JFG, who's been trash-talking me at an array of Admin boards recently, freely admitting there that his complaints were out of process, but hoping nonetheless to get me sanctioned. Hmm. Anyway, JFG could clear up the false flag question by requesting a checkuser on himself to check out all of his IP's.

At any rate, I don't see anything in this complaint that's credible enough to need a response from me, but if there's anything Admins would like me to address, please let me know.  SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Another curious fact is that the IP editor geolocates to a secure US Government NASA facility Lol, probably one of those "diversity hires." When China's colonizes the moon we'll be celebrating the number of women who build our latest put put rocket. At least that nice south african boy is trying to help. Sad state of affairs. 155.254.48.193 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by filer. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

SPECIFICO began his editing career sockpuppeteering with User:Kevin4762 with the goal of removing the economist infobox at Peter Schiff. (The economist infobox had been a common point of contention among other editors since at least Schiff's 2010 U.S. senate campaign in Connecticut.) Immaterial, but interesting that SPECIFICO still has the Peter Schiff infobox draft in his sandbox after all these years. 

SPECIFICO's editing history began by editing with IPs who all admitted to being the same person (not socks):


 * IP96 deprecated Schiff's status as an economist with this edit on July 27, 2012:
 * Sock Kevin4762 was created on July 29, 2012.
 * IP96's last edit was on August 10, 2012.
 * Kevin4762 and IP 24.151.19.17 both made their first edits the next day on August 11, 2012. ,
 * IP 24.151.19.17 admitted to being IP 96.32.44.159 at Talk:Peter Schiff (his comment is inserted in the middle of another editor's comment) by acknowledging adding the text "a prediction which, five years later, has not proven correct" contained in IP96's edit:
 * SPECIFICO admitted being the IP24s here: and here:
 * Once the infobox was changed Kevin stopped editing (see below).

SPECIFICO created the account Kevin4762 to pretend to argue with him about labeling Peter Schiff as an economist in order to come to a fake compromise to remove the economist infobox. They argued through edit summaries, at IP24's talk page, (one-sided argument) at Kevin's talk page,  and at TimesAreAChanging's talk page. 

The resulting compromise was made to appear to be Kevin's idea. (Kevin indicated his reply by beginning with the text "Kevin:", and without a signature.) SPECIFICO uses a nearly identical odd style of commenting during their staged arguments referenced above, and at the Talk:Peter Schiff discussions referenced below.

At Talk:Peter Schiff, when SPECIFICO (as IP) is questioned by, he repeatedly deflects by claiming that it was "Kevin"'s idea: "As previously noted, it was not I but "kevin" who changed the template to infobox person...I did not compel Kevin to make that change. He adopted a suggestion for compromise that I stated. If you are unhappy with that I suggest you direct your concern to Kevin." (Just Ctrl+F for "Kevin" to see the many instances at that Talk:Peter Schiff/Archive 2.) By the time SPECIFICO had removed the economist template like he wanted, the Kevin4762 sock had disappeared two days earlier after having served its purpose. 

SPECIFICO's newness was questioned at the time by User:Collect:

SPECIFICO appears to have pretended to be new by pretending to not know how to indent or create a signature, however:
 * He knew how to indent on August 14, 2012:
 * When he created a userpage (as his second edit) the autogenerated edit summary shows he used four tildas, and even knew how to create a line with four dashes:
 * He knew how to create a sandbox and draft an infobox:
 * On August 12, 2012, he acknowledges SineBot's message to use a signature and replies by successfully using a signature:
 * He continues to use a signature in August at Talk:Peter Schiff:
 * Unlike during the staged arguments at SPECIFICO's IP talk page, during the staged discussion on TheTimesAreAChanging's talk page the "Kevin" character knows how to sign:
 * And how would an inexperienced editor know how to sign their name in this strange way which he did for a few weeks?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

, in broadly investigating SPECIFICO's behavior, naturally I took a look at the beginning. I found SPECIFICO's sockpuppeteering which you interacted with in 2012. Regardless of the age of this case, this dishonesty should be documented and addressed. This SPI has nothing to do with the incidental discussion about SPECIFICO's gender which you happened to find (which was itself really about honesty). As you have been "absolutely floored by SPECIFICO's behavior", so have I. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

, we can't conclude that SPECIFICO has not socked since 2012, especially if it is not investigated whether he socked at inception. I stand by my statement above that this investigation has nothing to do with SPECIFICO's gender (which I believe was already determined), but about whether there has been a pattern of deception from the beginning. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' While I have no comment on the evidence presented, the referenced discussion from eight years ago is stale and this seems like a transparent attempt to harass or "out" SPECIFICO by a user that has expressed an unhealthy interest in whether SPECIFICO is (in Kolya Butternut's words) "a she in real life". I also note for the record that the OP emailed me to request dirt on SPECIFICO eleven days ago, to which I did not respond.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the close. Digging up things from like a decade ago is not really appropriate in this case. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO
I presume we have many Admins watching this page. Could one of them please give a good long block to OP for this nonsense. This user has been stalking me for some time now, and the detailed fictitious WP:ASPERSIONS about a trivial matter from 1992 is beyond creepy. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing without action. Bringing up accounts and IPs from 2012 to report 8 years later isn't going to be investigated when said user has never previously socked. Such accounts and IPs are unlikely to be accessible by the person who actually controls them (whether or not it is this user), so blocks are not going to be useful. I'm not going to warn any user for socking 8 years ago, when they haven't socked since. Editors above have given these diffs and  and have pointed out that, the filer wants  wanted at the time to know if SPECIFICO is a she in real life. I am closing this with the understanding that this user, and the user / IPs have not been linked at SPI. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (comment modified Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 08:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I have made several modifications to the above statement to ensure that it is more factually correct. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, what I meant was that they hadn't been found to be socking previously. I always assume that an editor hasn't socked since, unless there is evidence to the contrary, due to my assumption of good faith. If you want another clerk / CU / admin to look at this you can ask them. If another clerk / CU / admin disagrees and wants to reopen, please email me so I can give some comments on the matter, but feel free to review this. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to reword the last part. If you want to request a review of my closure, I suggest posting at WT:SPI. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)