(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tedgrant1917

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

Tedgrant1917

Tedgrant1917 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

28 May 2024

edit

  – This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

As noted by Rambling Rambler in this Talk diff, the listed users appear to be engaged in coordinated work on Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992) which I suspect to be sockpuppeting and/or meatpuppeting. There are multiple COIs in play.

Background

TedGrant1917 made a number of edits to the above article, including moving it to a new title. This resulted in an AfD because the new subject didn't seem notable. Both Tedgrant1917 and Hewer7 contributed to the AfD, which reverted the move/hijacking of the page. Since the reversion, TedGrant1917 has continued to submit disruptive edits, such as updating the logo and lead to not match the page title. The nature of Tedgrant1917's earlier edits, particularly the unreferenced ones imply first-hand knowledge/an undeclared COI. They also demonstrated a certain contempt for WP policy in this talk comment: "because I'm not a wiki nerd and I don't understand all this procedural bs haha."

On one hand, don't bite the newbies. On the other hand, I must confess it became harder to assume good faith from someone who seemingly wanted to turn the article into an "About Us" page for their website and scorned those who said "That's not what WP is".

Other Accounts

In April, MauriceDumighan was created. They have exclusively edited on this article with disruptive edits in the style of Tedgrant1917 (e.g. updating lead & logo to not match title). They also started a Draft for the "new" or "relaunched" title or the organisation (or it's successor). Joining WP and immediately starting a draft implies more than a passing connection/interest to the topic and prior experience.

Alexaxton was created in March, editing largely on this article. Alexaxton actually drafted an apparently autobiographical article in their sandbox which demonstrates an otherwise-undisclosed COI. This was blanked on May 24th after being noted by Rambling Rambler. I'm inclined to think they might be a meatpuppet rather than the same user as Tedgrant1917.

Hewer7 is an inherently suspicious account, having been created in 2014 and making precisely one edit, but then bursting into life a decade later, editing largely on socialist topics (as well as some cosmology). They have only made a couple of small, uncontroversial edits to the article, but have solidly backed other users on this list. Their contribution to the AfD implies a connection/COI. They then stated that they were in fact a supporter of the organisation, which was not previously disclosed. Rambling Rambler has flagged separately and collapsed part of Talk for bludgeoning the conversation.


The contributions of all these accounts feel very first hand. My takeaway is that if these accounts are not obviously the same people (or a couple of people), they represent a co-ordinated meatpuppet effort by individuals personally involved with the article subject.

I also realise at this point that Hewer7 is technically the oldest account. However, they "entered the chat" after Tedgrant1917. Which could be total chance, a user remembering their "aged" account and using it to sockpuppet or a meatpuppet reactivating their account.

I appreciate all the COI issues are not strictly in the remit of CU and that meat-puppeting is much harder to detect than straight socks (unless they all went for an edit session on the same cafe wifi and are logged as IP sharing!). But given the number of new COI accounts, which indicate possibly-coordinated activity on this subject since February and the focussed editing patterns, I would appreciate a CU giving it the once-over for any blatant issues. I suspect there has been a membership mailshot asking members to get involved on WP. Notably, one prolific (and probably COI) editor (UnixBased) has already acrued a sockpuppet ban (albeit they mostly seemed to be undoing Tedgrant1917's edits!). This article has gained the feeling of a battleground. Any feedback is much appreciated as this is my first time submitting a sockpuppet investigation. Hemmers (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'd just like to add my support of this investigation. This looks to be a WP:DUCK situation in regards to at least three of the accounts when it comes to the at least meat-puppet/COI nature of this given the incredibly niche nature of the organisation and the arguments used in the move discussion that don't seek to demonstrate evidence that meets Wikipedia's policies on notability but instead WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS emotive pleas.

Would also add that meat-puppetry and COI concerns were identified by an auto-patroller while dealing with a page protection request linked to disruptive editing by an IP user to do with this topic[1] and that it is probably best to add said IP to the list of potential sockpuppets/meatpuppets given their actions 2A02:8109:B511:9F00:4C6F:D88F:767F:A01E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Regards, Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the accusation that mine is an "inherently suspicious account". Hemmers has evidently not bothered to check my contributions record very carefully. I became more active in the last year to work on cosmology articles, only later editing political ones. As he seems to realise, in the edits which I made to the Socialist Appeal page, prior to becoming aware of COI, I have been careful to try to make edits that fit to wikipedia's policy. I note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest says that COI editing is strongly discouraged but not outright banned. I also note that it says that "When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes." I felt pressured into stating my COI and resent having to do so. In the UK political opinions are classed as sensitive political data, a special category with additional protections above that of personal data. There is a reason for that. Although I am obviously not using my real name here, my email address is linked and I am not convinced that my data on Wikipedia is necessarily secure.
I would like to be informed about how having a polite discussion can be construed as "bludgeoning" - particularity when it was carried on with someone who, whilst endlessly saying 'drop it' carried on making additional points themselves.
I only became aware of this investigation by checking my watchlist. How are other accused being informed about it? Hewer7 (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the idea of there being a "membership mailshot" is ridiculous. The RCP has over 1,000 members in Britain. Here's a picture of just a few of them https://www.instagram.com/p/C6i545Nt4UW/?img_index=1 Hewer7 (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the accusation that mine is an "inherently suspicious account". Hemmers has evidently not bothered to check my contributions record very carefully.
You should not take this personally. It is perfectly normal to double check an old account which has burst into life after a decade. Wikipedia does not have things like 2Factor Auth except for admins. Consequently there are risk factors surrounding abandoned/aged accounts being hijacked (e.g. through credential stuffing where a user's old - reused - password has been leaked elsewhere and found to be valid on WP. Have I Been Pwned is highly recommended). Now admittedly your account was not particularly privileged or of high value to a bad actor, but it fits a pattern associated with hijacked accounts are well as legimitate returners. You might be surprised how valuable aged accounts can be on the dark markets. It is also not uncommon for malicious actors to "cover their tracks" with some innocuous editing before turning to their intended target. It doesn't mean you have done anything wrong - it's just a red flag that's worth checking, the same as your bank flagging for an unusually large (but legitimate) purchase.
Given that the article in question has seen a great deal of editing by users who are blatantly COI but refuse to disclose their connection (or have only done so rather late in the discussion), you should not take it too personally when users ask CU to have a look and establish "Actually nothing to see here", or "X&Y are sockpuppets, but Hewer7 doesn't seem to be a part of it". This scrutiny is important for the integrity of WP.
Please note I will not be engaging in a lengthy debate on the matter as Rambling Rambler did in Talk when you didn't take the hint (WP:IDHT). I have raised the case, and will be leaving it for uninvolved admins/CU to assess. Hemmers (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tedgrant1917&oldid=1226272083"