Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vix sapientia/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All three of these accounts are focused on Jordan Harbinger or things related to him. That page and a now-deleted related page (see Articles_for_deletion/The_Art_of_Charm_(2nd_nomination)) were created by the same likely UPE (see Special:Contributions/Eggnog_slog).

When I came across it, the Harbinger page was promotional and full of unsourced/badly-sourced content, and an analysis of editing showed a clear pattern of SPA editing from IP addresses and a couple of named accounts, the oldest of which is the proposed master.

The master disclosed on their user page that they are in the commercial insurance business and are "an avid consumer of 'personal development', 'fitness' and 'mindfulness' content" and intended to contribute in those areas. They did make five edits to Fidelity bond; the rest were all about Harbinger and also created Draft:The Jordan Harbinger Show. Per sourced content in the article about him, Harbinger trained as a lawyer and worked on real estate derivatives on wall street just before the financial crash; commercial insurance is right up along side that.

The proposed master also uploaded to the Commons, claiming it as their "own work". This is the same image Harbinger uses for PR/branding for his podcast (e.g. here, here, etc. This is one of our common signs of conflicted editing. This person is pretty obviously MEAT if not a sock.

The proposed master was asked about COI at an AfD of the Harbinger page here, and said here that they have none; they made one last edit tweaking that, and that was their last edit here. That was May of this year. I'll note that the last tweak did the following shown in redaction "no conflict. I'm obligated to disclose those and since I haven't, I don't have one. Called integrity. As my profile says, it's just something that interests me, and I've also worked on a few insurance related pages which is my area of expertise. " I'll come back to that "Called integrity" and their bailing after that.

The Buddhabody account made only two edits, both on the Harbinger page. This one is a tweak to better highlight his new podcast; this one is image management, removing the actual "Make Money Matter" branding of the conference (which is "Thrive Make Money Matter") which I guess does not fit his brand.

After I stumbled over this and rewrote it in these diffs, an IP address showed up and made the following edits, with these edit notes...
 * diff restoring "see also" to another person with edit note these people are indeed relevant as they are peers of the subject of the article
 * diff restoring "see also" to another person with edit note james altucher is a peer of the subject of the article and frequently compared to one another online
 * diff restoring "see also" to another person with edit note same niche, relevant comparison, and the subject of the article has been referred to as "the larry king of podcasting") (they self-reverted that last one, without an edit note.
 * After I again removed these, the IP completely reverted to a version before my edits with edit note reverting to a better-sourced and more easily readable version of the article)


 * I posted a welcome and COI notice on the IP's talk page at 13:50, 10 July.


 * the IP responded at their talk page 3 hours later, writing I do not have any COI here. I just think the previous version of the article was much better. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia


 * 2 hours later, the IP came to my talk page and (surprisingly) in a section called "I'm Jordan Harbinger and I want to help with this article" they said that they are the article subject.  I asked them to create an account and to verify their identity per IMPERSONATE, and they did so, and their identity was confirmed.

It was already clear to me from my work on the page, that the article subject makes money by selling an image of himself (they are a "self-help" person) and that he carefully manages his image online. He went from selling himself as someone who can teach men how to be pick-up artists (LA Times ref) to selling himself as someone who teaches men how to be "authentic" so that they can be happy and successful more broadly (e.g this interview at the GoodMenProject). That is his image and that is what he sells. Authenticity. (complicated, right?)

Anyway in their first edit at my talk page the IP wrote I wanted to let you know that these American Express pieces that you have used were, if memory serves, actually some paid media done a LONG time ago by a terrible marketing company, and probably shouldn't be used for a wikipedia article. Also, I was never a pickup artist. I hate that term and view it as really aggressive and pejorative. Please do not classify me as that, as it is not accurate. Not sure what else I can do here other than ask nicely and explain that the term is not an accurate representation of what I do, nor have done in the past. (Note, the content I generated never said that Harbinger himself is or was a pickup artist) After they created the account they came back to my talk page and wrote this I’ve submitted a request for verification. I’ve also made an account using my real name. Thanks guys. I also wrote that piece you’re discussing where it says “I used to be a pickup artist” -that was for SEO purposes. Not sure if it matters.

The piece he was referring to was the "GoodMenProject" piece linked above.

That is complicated right? On the one hand we have BLP issues, and on the other, this is very clear PR and image management. He acknowledged above that he does PR and SEO things, quite intentionally.

One of the first things I did at their TP was ask if have edited under other the two other accounts listed here. They said said no. Which to be frank I found dubious, but I simply thanked them for replying and moved on.

I also posted to their talk page, starting to explain how we manage conflict of interest, and asked them to post a disclosure on their talk page: To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:JHarbinger - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I am Jordan Harbinger and have a conflict of interest with regard to the page on myself and related topics" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like). . I wrote that carefully, knowing that the subject is acutely interested in self-promotion here on Wikipedia.

They did post to their user page but with much more than the basic disclosure: I’m Jordan Harbinger, host of The Jordan Harbinger Show. I edit articles related to me with a clear and disclosed COI and occasionally edit content about North Korea as I have traveled there several times. I have been podcasting since 2006 and will also contribute occasionally to that topic as well. This is SEO and PR selling "authenticity", and as such violates our USERPAGE and PROMO policies.

I told them that this was not OK, and in response he changed it with some snark. At that point I was done, and said so at their talk page. They responded with this flounce quit, and by changing their userpage with this bitterness.

This is along the same lines of how Vix sapientia reacted at the AfD.

JHarbinger also just now removed Vix Sapientia from the list of people I generated at the talk page as editors who "may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article"

We already have the explicit misdirecting if not lying in the IP's response to the COI notice above as well as their edit notes referring to Harbinger as "the subject" when they were adding back the "see alsos". The IP also wrote twice about being a new user (already linked, but here and here) but the JHarbinger account displays a knowledge of WP for example here in their edit note: Confirmed alt accounts are not me. The use of our phrase "alt accounts" contradicts the claims of inexperience somewhat. Along with the behavior issues.

I believe these accounts are socks. I would not be surprised if a CU turns up sleepers. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift CU, Bbb23. I do look for administrative judgement with respect to the proposed master. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

 * Buddhabody and JHarbinger are ✅ to each other. . Vix sapientia is technically ❌, but it's hard to believe. See also The Art of Charm (admins only), which both Vix sapientia and Buddhabody edited, but the two users are editing from different countries.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's just close and move on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)