Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sageworksinc/Archive

18 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets

(the last one added later)


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

Nine throwaway accounts and three I.P. addresses devoted to Sageworks company article, participating mostly or solely at Sageworks to add positive info, remove negative info, and at Talk:Sageworks to obfuscate, to attack credibility of rightly concerned regular editors (including User:Slowestonian and User:Physitsky)), to combat 3 speedy or PROD deletion attempts (generally because the article was promotional and notability was not established), and to selectively invite other editors (including me) to dupe them into helping them counter the concerned other editors. The editor is very Wikipedia-experienced: cites policies by their acronyms in edit summaries and Talk page discussion very easily, and knowledgeable about deletion processes and how to confound them.  Maybe this is overkill already?  And obvious enough so checkuser not needed?  do  ncr  am  20:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Questions of COI and sockpuppeting was worked out in discussion at Talk:Sageworks, including my eventually going through all editors of Sageworks article, its talk page, and the AFD to identify these 12.
 * Contributions of all accounts and I.P.s are single purposely devoted to promotion of Sageworks. Some have a few other edits,  articles, e.g. this edit to an Indian high school article, that suggest, or are meant to suggest, some Indian association of the editor.  Edit history of Wulftown one and maybe others suggest some Bridgton, Maine association, and interest in NCAA bball.  Otherwise it's all on Sageworks.
 * The sockpuppeting of at least a few of these was correctly identified [by Physitsky and by Slowestonian
 * 77 woodmont inviting just the 3 neutral or keep voters in the recent AFD on Sageworks article: inviting here, here, and here.
 * Roamingeditor222226 disrupts by suggesting a concerned editor is working for a competitor, and cites Wikipedia policy,
 * Roamingeditor222226 attacks Slowestonian and asserts "Cannot speak for the other account you mentioned, but if you'll look at my history you'll see that I've edited several other entries". That's from an editor with about 50 edits total, all on Sageworks except for 6 small edits on a music article and some to create a redirect from User:Roamingeditor222226 to User talk:Roamingeditor222226 and present a show of personal interests (similar to user pages of User:77 woodmont and User:Entrepreneurship58039).
 * No response, no further edits from 77 woodmont, Roamingeditor222226, and Entrepreneurship58039 after direct invitation to disclose any relationships to Sageworks or to each other.

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

Hi all. I'd like to formally introduce myself here and issue a disclosure and a mea cupla. I am now aware that I have, as an employee of Sageworks, violated Wikipedia policies by creating sock puppet accounts and not disclosing a Conflict of Interest. This was done through my own foolishness and initiative based on an incomplete understanding of Wikipedia; I was not directed by the company in these actions. In some cases these were accounts operated by myself, in some cases they were directly coordinated by myself to have others edit. Particularly pre-November 2014, my actions were due to a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia’s principles; later, I knew I was violating the principles, but didn’t really get the full significance/severity. For that, I am truly sorry.

The overall motivation was to correct false (or highly misleading) information. My more aggressive editing over the past few months was a response to what I perceived to be malicious/nefarious threat starting in November 2014 (i.e. something more serious than merely a few concerned editors). While I’m aware my credibility is diminished by my actions, I do think the page would benefit from the attention of a few more editors, as some false and some heavily misleading information does remain.

To help clear up this situation and bring this investigation to a close, I would like to clarify which accounts were operated by me (either directly or through surrogates explicitly directed by me):

User:77 woodmont (this account) User:Roamingeditor222226 User:Entrepreneurship58039 User:Bankingeditor User:Jackochs13

NOTE: Other accounts listed above by Doncram may have been operated by Sageworks folks over the years for very minor tweaks, but because I did not create or post from them directly, I cannot confirm 100 percent. These would have been, in my best guess, reflecting a simple lack of understanding of Wikipedia, rather than anything malicious.

Knowing that my actions in the past were in violation of the guidelines, and having openly disclosed my COI here, I hope that I can appeal to editors to allow me to retain use of this (and only this) account. I commit to carefully following the rules in future, will not make any further edits to the Sageworks article, and intend only to use this account to participate in discussions where I will continue to disclose my conflict of interest. Thank you for your consideration. --77 woodmont (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I guess. I don't know that I buy it all, but I appreciate your statement, as far as it goes.  It adds User:Bankingeditor to the list.  As a matter of process, this sockpuppet investigation will continue in some way to formally record connections of accounts.  I myself am not sure on process here or elsewhere to determine other facts and consequences.  I'll make a few notes:
 * The statement above is 3 days after I gave very clear warning and explanation that if you're socking you will be found out, you better 'fess up, at 77_woodmont's Talk. In that warning I did suggest there "could" be leniency: " If the 3 accounts are for one person, it could be understood that you are a new editor, and if you admit the connection of the accounts publicly and agree to use just one going forward, it would be okay".  Something, but not too much or too little, should be granted for that, though I am not an admin and not in any other way formally "authorized" to make deals.  I am sure the editor went and read the policies carefully, and saw how strict they are, so was not solely relying upon my statement.
 * The editor then stopped editing in all accounts, I think, until the above statement and giving notice of the above at Talk:Sageworks
 * It's 2 days or 1 day after Talk:Sageworks compiled evidence and was concluding that socking is clear
 * It's 26 hours after this SPI was opened
 * The nature of the violations are serious and go beyond COI violation and "simple" socking, rather comprising more fraud and some malice:
 * The socking done included fabrication of full personae, complete with "interests": R here, E here, 77w here, J here
 * It includes suggestion/accusation that another editor works for competitor suggesting a concerned editor is working for a competitor (which I find unlikely to be true, and likely malicious and knowingly so)
 * The edits demonstrate pretty comprehensive knowledge of wikipedia rules, including multiple ones citing policies explicitly, e.g. this one admonishing an editor to study several policies before participating further at the Sageworks page
 * It includes other negative suggestions/requests/assertions about regular editors
 * It includes explicit denial, reflecting knowledge of the rules, in Roamingeditor222226 attacks Slowestonian and asserts "Cannot speak for the other account you mentioned, but if you'll look at my history you'll see that I've edited several other entries".
 * It also included violation of wp:CANVASS: *77 woodmont inviting just the 3 neutral or keep voters in the recent AFD on Sageworks article:  inviting here, here, and here. Given wiki-competence of editor, I tend to doubt this was without awareness of rules here
 * Minor note (pun intended): I appreciate this notice given, but technically it should not have been marked as a "minor edit" (see Help:Minor edit)
 * Assuming 77 woodmont's statement is completely true, there seems to have been a long-term pattern of behavior at the company to promote itself and to manage its wikipedia page, which I think requires something more. Does the company condone such behavior?  Does it have an explicit code of ethics?  How can what's been done reconcile with professional practices?
 * I'd welcome others' comments, including whether this is the appropriate venue. -- do ncr  am  01:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. The named master is stale and not the oldest account. A few accounts are older, although not all of the old accounts are stale. For the benefit of the CU, the following accounts in addition to the named master are stale: Mdascola, Ronald M Creatore Esq., and Wulftown. 77 Woodmont's admission is acknowledged, although I did note that Roamingeditor222226 was older than 77 Woodmont. I also note, as Doncram stated, that there is a lot of abuse and a lot of lying. It goes beyond just not knowing our policies. The CU would be checking the non-stale accounts. I'm not that concerned who the master is.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The following editors are ✅:
 * No other accounts showed up. All the remaining accounts originally listed are - and, naturally, . Yunshui 雲 水  13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No other accounts showed up. All the remaining accounts originally listed are - and, naturally, . Yunshui 雲 水  13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No other accounts showed up. All the remaining accounts originally listed are - and, naturally, . Yunshui 雲 水  13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No other accounts showed up. All the remaining accounts originally listed are - and, naturally, . Yunshui 雲 水  13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No other accounts showed up. All the remaining accounts originally listed are - and, naturally, . Yunshui 雲 水  13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No other accounts showed up. All the remaining accounts originally listed are - and, naturally, . Yunshui 雲 水  13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No other accounts showed up. All the remaining accounts originally listed are - and, naturally, . Yunshui 雲 水  13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed and tagged all the confirmed accounts. Avoiding the issue of the master, I tagged them as if they were all masters pointing to this case. In other words, any new puppets would be filed under Sageworksinc as the "master". Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)