Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susanburkelawyer/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Susanburkelawyer


Susanburkelawyer

Susanburkelawyer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
18 April 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

While doing recent change patrol of new user contribs I noticed the edit history of the page for Susan L. Burke which had edits from 3 fairly new users that all have very similar usernames. Susanburkelawyer made its first edit on Feb 6, 2012; Lawyer1234 made its first edit on Feb 7, 2012; and Lawyer5678 made its first edit on April 11, 2012. Each username has edited exclusively on the Susan L. Burke page. On April 11 Susanburkelawyer stopped editing at 14:43 and Lawyer5678 started editing at 14:49. Edits were made (many with no edit summaries) that removed a lot of content and references: [1], [2], [3]. There's more but it seems pretty clear that these usernames are the same person based on the names and edit histories. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

New user has popped up and started editing the same article in a similar fashion. JanetteDoe (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Confirmed as each other:

However, Susanburkelawyer is   Unrelated to the above three socks. I have blocked the above three socks and its underlying IP. --MuZemike 21:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no comment with regard to the above-reported IP address. --MuZemike 21:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18 April 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

It looks like there is a whole new drawer of WP:SPAs / WP:SOCKs. Can we get checkuser on the following, who have exclusively edited Susan L. Burke. Also, the first username listed is in the same vein as previously blocked socks, aka LawyerNNNN. Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Clerk endorsed - Editing history matches the previous socks in the archives. Let's see if there are any other socks in the drawer we're missing. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intern2012 (talk · contribs) is   Possible to Marogers.mar (talk · contribs), Marogers.mar has one other alternate account, with no abuse. There is another user that is also another user is   Possible also, but absent of behavioral evidence, I can't make any conclusions. At this time, all others seem   Unrelated, surprisingly. Behavioral evidence is going to be your best defense in this case. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Administrator note I don't consider any of this activity to be especially actionable, nor do I see any compelling behavioural evidence that suggests the technical conclusion drawn above is wrong. The master's username is a source of concern, but I see no point in pursuing the provisions of our username policy with an account that seems to be out of use. Closing without action, and marking for archival. AGK [•] 12:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17 February 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Long-term COI on Susan L. Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Some of these are already blocked for abusing multiple accounts (Lawyer1234, Lawyer567, Lawyer5678, Paralegal65). Obvious WP:DUCK. One common feature is changing "personal injury lawyer" to "Human rights lawyer" and/or adding peacock language such as "has gained widespread fame". However, as there has never been an SPI filed, they've never really been formally connected for the record. (oops, not sure how I missed the previous ones, must have made a typo). Yworo (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (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
I erroneously stated in Percy's SPI case that Rathmome (talk · contribs), InternationalFootballLover23 (talk · contribs), and Lawyer2345 (talk · contribs) were socks of his, which led to these accounts being identified with that sock farm. Looking at it again, while these accounts are definitely socks of each other, and almost certainly socks of SBL, they do not appear to be related to Percy. I have changed the tags for the accounts that needed it to reflect this, sorry for the confusion. J.delanoygabsadds 04:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1 March 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Both accounts (now blocked by me) have either edited the archived SPI's for this case, or have accused other admins of being Susanburkelawyer. Filing for the record, and asking for a CU to see if there are sleepers, and to see if targeted hard block/range block is practical. Do I understand User:Susanburkelawyer isn't actually involved? If so, should this be moved to some other name? I'm slightly confused. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added Favvonn, as they were vandalizing my page while I was writing this SPI, following in the footsteps of Da Yaj, and I haven't had that happen for a while so I assume they're related. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2013 (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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Susanburkelawyer/Archive&oldid=1138680278"