English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Sockpuppet investigations/Sageworksinc/Archive

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick


Sageworksinc

Sageworksinc (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
18 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

(the last one added later)

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? doncram 20:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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:
I'd welcome others' comments, including whether this is the appropriate venue. --doncram 01:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk endorsed. 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  Confirmed:
No other accounts showed up. All the remaining accounts originally listed are  Stale - and, naturally, no No comment with respect to IP address(es). 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)
Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sageworksinc/Archive&oldid=3458685"