Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Susana Hodge


Susana Hodge

07 July 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


This editor created an article Foundr after responding to an ad where they claimed to be an experienced editor. If they are an experienced editor and are creating a new user account to engage in undisclosed editing for pay in violation of the TOU, then that is an inappropriate use of a WP:SOCK.--v/r - TP 01:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC) v/r - TP 01:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

  • I want to add that the external link in the filing post is critical reading for those investigating the behavioral evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also want to strongly endorse what Smartse said below, and even go beyond that. It would be disgraceful to close this request on rigid procedural grounds, and I am likely to initiate a complaint elsewhere onsite if a pro-forma close is made. Please have another checkuser consider this case before closing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clerks please note that there is a discussion about the close at User talk:Bbb23#I think your closure was wrong.. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • There are no listed puppets. Nothing to do here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bbb23: The Entrepreneur article essentially says that the article was created by a professional UPE and yet it was created by a new account. That seems to justify a CU IMO even if we don't have anyone to check against. As you know, sometimes it can lead to many more articles. If you're not happy to do it, please at least leave it for someone else to consider. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08 July 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Checkuser is suggested only for Neptune's Trident and Noam Javits. All other socks are too old for CU and are listed for behavioral evidence.

  • Foundr: An Entrepreneur article says the page was created by an experienced editor for pay without disclosure; the AfD is likely to end in deletion. The page was created by the single-purpose (and not experienced) Noam Javits account, now indeffed; see also the SPI (which should be moved here). Please note the following editing patterns: little or no use of edit summaries, many small edits made very rapidly, examples: [1], [2], [3]. During the AfD, Neptune's Trident commented "keep" [4], while making a flurry of edits to try to save the page, examples: [5], [6], [7], with the same editing patterns.
  • Supercat Fast Ferry Corporation and Sujan Patel: In the middle of making those rapid edits to Foundr, Neptune's Trident briefly interrupted the edits to make two other edits: [8] and [9], to pages they had never edited before, also about a company and an entrepreneur. The Patel page edit strangely removed a "multiple issues" tag without fixing any of those issues. That page was started by Willpegan and Beater1989: [10], with edits only 10 minutes apart and the same editing patterns. The Ferry page was started by Nowell 1011, example edits: [11] and [12], and also edited by Vanzent, example: [13], same editing patterns. Both of those accounts were strictly single-purpose: [14], [15].
  • Ausmed: Another entrepreneurial startup, expanded also by both Willpegan: [16] and Beater1989: [17].
  • Will Egan: Another entrepreneur page started by Beater1989, who also spammed him into Event-driven marketing: [18]. The only edit by the JustinCm2009 account was removing tags without fixing anything: [19].
  • Code the Future: Another startup page started by Beater1989 and edited by the single-purpose accounts Edu62015: [20] and Wish89: [21].

Taken together, this looks like Neptune's Trident is the experienced editor hired to write Foundr, who used a sockfarm of throwaway accounts to conceal paid edits. The edit histories overlap and share the editing style of rapid and mostly edit summary-free small edits. We know that the Noam Javits account was a promotional single-purpose account, and a checkuser could evaluate connections between Neptune's Trident and Noam Javits (and perhaps discover other socks). Neptune's Trident has previously been blocked for abusing multiple accounts: [22], and also has a talk page history of notices about pages tagged for deletion, with those notices rapidly reverted without reply: [23]. Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to thank Katie for resolving the investigation convincingly, and my apologies to Neptune's Trident for my misidentification. Honestly, to me the behavioral evidence seemed sufficient, but I'm less experienced in SPI than the rest of you are. (And I emphatically was not asking for a fishing expedition, and I'm baffled by the implied assertion that I was.) In any case, what is important here is that the accounts are confirmed to be Noam Javits, and thus to be the accounts involved in the paid editing, which is something that was very important to find out. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Checkuser note: The only thing of interest to me here is the evidence connecting Neptune's Trident and Noam Javits. The evidence is insufficient to run a check. Indeed, if it were my call, I'd close it without any action. However, because I've been badgered by the filer, I will let a clerk decide whether to endorse the CU or another CheckUser may run it without an endorsement if they wish. The filer is grasping at straws in their zeal to (1) find a master and (2) force a check of Noam Javits. Also, the closed SPI with Noam Javits listed as the master/sock of no one should not be moved here. There is no reason to do so. It should be archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was persuaded by Salvidrim!'s argument that violations of the TOU must be investigated. I will not use CU for random fishing expeditions, so don't even ask me in the future. You'd better have some solid stuff to back it up.
  • I ran only the blocked account. I did not run Neptune's Trident, because I agree with Bbb23 that the evidence for connection is weak.
  • The following accounts are   Confirmed to each other:
  • Based on these results, Susana Hodge is probably your experienced account responsible for the Foundr article. There are a couple of other sockmasters on these ranges, but there are significant behavioral differences.
  • I saw no evidence of Neptune's Trident on the ranges in question.
  • Blocked awaiting tags.   Clerk assistance requested: Susana Hodge is the oldest account. Katietalk 18:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't personally take clerk action because, a Katie points out, I've spoken my mind about this too much to appear neutral, but my recommendation would be to move this case to SPI/Susana Hodge and merge the previous SPI/Noam Javits case there since that account ended up a confirmed sock as well. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18 July 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Brand new editor adding unreffed content to artilce worked on by Susana Hodge [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

31 October 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

All seemingly undisclosed paid editors. There is a link to this sockfarm via Jeff Bussgang to which IronManX added a photo that they had uploaded: master IronmanX. NoMoreHate also edited that article and there is more crossover at Special:Undelete/Shafat_Qazi where NoMoreHate created the article and IronManX added a photo.

Note that IronManXX has disclosed that IronManX is their old account: [29]. SmartSE (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Southoftheyarra per [30] [31] in relation to NoMoreHate's creation. SmartSE (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Noted two other accounts JobinJOBI & Peter Patrick with extremely similar subject matter edited, and nearly identical edit summaries to Samuel P Joy. Note especially all three were created in October and began editing within days/hours of each other. All three use the strikingly unusual phrase "reference for the same" [32][33][34] Request these be added to the CU investigation ☆ Bri (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. I noticed Samuel p joy somewhere else a few weeks ago and thought their contribs were unusual and these two other accounts have also popped up on my watchlist editing articles historically affected by UPE. SmartSE (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at this point I think it's very close to the point where more editors of Leesa Sleep are socks than not. It was created by Falklandore who is marked as having been blocked for abusing multiple accounts along with Josebrayo and Newzemang. Adding all three to the list immediately above. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with the other accounts listed in this thread, which has now been confirmed below. Southoftheyarra (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

Please check these additional accounts, too. Thanks very much   GABgab 18:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Question: As I wrote before (see archive), "Susana Hodge" is a LinkedIn account that advertises Wikipedia writing services. I'll identify the account by email to anyone who asks, or anyone with OTRS access can look at VRTS ticket # 2016082710007096 for evidence. My question is, does anyone know of a way to get LinkedIn involved, given that this editor is using LinkedIn for the sole purpose of violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use? I suppose I could write them an email but I'm wondering if anyone has come across a "report this account" function. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This link has details on how to report a profile under "reporting a profile that is fake..." Presumably you'll need an account. SmartSE (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh actually, abuse linkedin.com is probably the best bet [35]. SmartSE (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have not dealt with Linkedin yet. But yes reporting can be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The profile is real enough, no reason to think it's fake. I don't see anything in particular in LinkedIn's Terms of Use that prohibit this paid editor's activity, unless maybe using LinkedIn to violate the WMF's Terms of Use qualifies as disallowed. Mostly LinkedIn's Terms of Use seems to be worded to cover LinkedIn's own ass. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: I see your point bit it's still probably worth asking. If you don't want to yourself can you email me the link and I will try to get round to it next week. SmartSE (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to abuse@linkedin.com describing the situation. @Smartse: I also sent you an email. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: @Smartse: Unforunately LinkedIn has declined to take action. First they sent me this reply:

If you are reporting the content on this member's profile, it may be best if you file a formal claim regarding false profile information. Below is a link with more information on flagging false profiles as well as directions for filing a "Notice of Inaccurate Profile Information" form at https://help.linkedin.com/app/ask/path/TS-NFPI.

Reporting Inaccurate Profile Information: https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/global/id/30200
If you are reporting other content that mentions Wikipedia, I would encourage you to submit a trademark claim.
For your convenience, the claim form can be completed and signed electronically. You can file your claim by completing the form here: https://help.linkedin.com/app/ask/path/TS-NTMI
Here's more information about our formal process: http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=copyright_policy
Please be aware that, although our claim process is designed to help you to the best of our ability, LinkedIn is not in a position to resolve legal disputes between third parties.
I followed up to that with a comment requesting to re-read my original complaint, and re-stating that LinkedIn is facilitating long-term abuse on Wikipedia by keeping the profile up. They responded:

We are unable to take action based on activity that is being reported as unauthorized off the LinkedIn site. If you wish to report the content on his profile as inaccurate, please submit an inaccurate profile claim. If you would like to report the usage of "Wikipedia" in this member's ads, please submit a trademark claim.

I have submitted an "inaccurate profile" report, including information about the scam the user is running. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: I hope you don't mind me reformatting to keep this altogether. It seems as if you are yet to run into a human who's capable of using their judgement so far. Hopefully your efforts will eventually pay off, but if not we could try their twitter account instead. SmartSE (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a Twitter account (LikedIn requires reporting from your account, so it's likely that Twitter does also), so someone else will have to try that. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...As do these CU-blocked accounts. GABgab 00:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Susana_Hodge/Archive&oldid=1076215372"