Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lawline

Lawline (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
27 January 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Lawline was blocked for making legal threats as part of a debacle over the article Hot Lap Dance Club. A few days later, FreedomFighter77 was created and proceeded to edit the article and its AfD in a manner very similar to Lawline. When confronted with the similarity they responded rather obliquely in a language resembling that of Lawline. They were then blocked as a sockpuppet per WP:DUCK. A few hours later, SnoopyPA shows up and edits the same article in the usual style. They too have been blocked, but as the account was actually created a couple of hours before FreedomFighter77, I suspect there might be sleepers so a CheckUser is requested to neutralize them. Favonian (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2011 (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]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Yeah, I think a sleeper check would be good here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No sleepers, but these three are the same person. TNXMan 15:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • information Administrator note All account already tagged and blocked indefinitely; nothing more to do here. Favonian (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

As with Lawline, these two accounts' edits are mostly related to Louis Joseph Posner and related articles. What88 has recreated three deleted articles originally created by Lawline: Louis Joseph Posner, almost exactly as it was when Lawline last edited it [1], VoterMarch, with much of the same text as Lawline's last version [2] (this is an organisation founded by Posner). Similar concerns have been raised with What88's edits regarding whitewashing as with Lawline's (see WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Lou Posner article).

What88 has also recreated John Vincent Saykanic, another article created by Lawline and again using some of the same text as Lawline's version [3]. RobinHood99, which looks to be a previous sock abandoned in March, also has a draft of this in their userspace: User:RobinHood99/John Vincent Saykanic.

RobinHood99 created HLD club, which was a club operated by Posner (see Louis Joseph Posner#Strip Club), Lawline previously created Hot Lap Dance Club on the same club. This account also had a draft of Alexia Moore, another article previously created by Lawline in their sandbox [4] (Moore is connected to the Hot Lap Dance Club as can be seen from that draft). This account has also added links to VoterMarch [5][6] and Posner's blog [7]. January (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What88 is now trying to get his articles deleted [8][9][10][11][12][13], as Lawline did when his articles came to the attention of other editors [14][15][16][17][18]. January (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this to a checkuser request as RobinHood99 has become active again, editing HLD Club (history). What88 made two edits to it on 24 Dec [19][20], the first time it had been edited since March, Robinhood99 then began a series of edits about 25 minutes later [21]. January (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
January's submission here beat mine to the line, and I concur in his assessment of puppetry. In addition to the evidence January presents (much more succinctly than I was going to), I would add that when What88 created the page Voter March (which Posner co-founded), he illustrated the articles with photos that had been uploaded years earlier by Lawline, and who by that time had been blocked for a couple of years. See one, two, three for a non-exhaustive list. Indeed just in the last couple of hours, What88 complained on my Talk page concerning the removal of one of Lawline's very photos from an article, here. What88's peculiar knowledge of Lawline's activities, combined with their nearly identical editing interests and POV, pretty much end the argument. JohnInDC (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deny the allegations of sockpuppeting.

As stated, there are various people, friends, colleagues, and associates, and even the general pubic, who also have familiarity with these topics. I have a strong knowledge of certain events that I have written about mainly because I have spent the time and effort to go through all 35 legal documents posted in the Scribd.com account for Jonathan S. Gould, Esq., who was one of the lawyers involved in the case. Likewise, I have also considerable spent time going through each and every article cited in the Voter March blog, as well as the prior archives of the website. The photos that were uploaded were found in Wiki Commons by doing a simple search of the key word "Voter March" and there was no need to go further. This accusatory tone leads me to believe that this is a "witch hunt." I was hoping to spend more time improving certain articles, but I am constantly being over-edited by people who are not as well versed in the topics that I am writing about. I am seeking "speedy deletion" of certain articles because I no longer have the necessary time to be constantly defending myself against aggressive editors who want to constantly be putting their two cents in, and who are constantly seeking to have articles deleted after contributors have spent a lot of time preparing them. Further, to the extent that I have been a creator of an article, I have the right to request speedy deletion of an article. User:What88 18:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Comment moved here from section below -- January (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request for CheckUser appears to be "overkill" and unwarranted. In my view, Wikipedia is operating like the National Security Agency with excessive spying and no regard for personal privacy. I see no grounds for the use of CheckUser, as there has been no 1.Vandalism; 2.Sock puppetry; 3.Disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project; or 4.Legitimate concerns about bad faith editing.
It is my understanding that Wikipedia has had a decline in new Editors and Administrators. If Wikipedia continues to operate this way, then Wikipedia, while currently the 5th most popular website on the Internet, will eventually implode and cause its own downfall. User:What88 22:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously have little idea either way but something I've noticed is that What88 doesn't know how to sign their comments properly whereas RobinHood99 does. Just an observation. Samwalton9 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good observation, but it's hard to give it much weight when What88 is going back and substituting his own signature on entries made and signed in the first instance by RobinHood99! JohnInDC (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're both using the four tildes, but What88 had a faulty custom signature [22]. January (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the call for this case, but I suspect the arrangement between Lawline, What88, and RobinHood99 may be more of a meatpuppetry arrangement that won't lend itself to leaving CU evidence. Examining What88's reactions to adding content to the Posner article in particular (namely, more or less losing it at the inclusion of the accusation that Posner had used Voter March to launder money, which is supported by sources), I suspect we might be looking at parties more interested in promoting Voter March than in personally promoting Posner (presuming there's any meaningful difference between the two). Anyhow, even if CU is negative, I believe there may be enough for a behavioral block, and even barring that, an uninvolved admin may wish to consider blocks for battleground behavior. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just going by the editing evidence, the case is pretty clearly positive. The argument against CU, made by the subject of the investigation, makes CU more desirable. Though I had not considered meatpuppetry. I think they are all the same individual. Dlohcierekim 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  In progress - LFaraone 21:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed that the two named users are the same. LFaraone 21:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What88 and RobinHood99 blocked indef per CU findings. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
29 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Early this morning, subsequent to yesterday's blocks of What88 and RobinHood99, User:Luckydan89 made his first edit in three months to urge the deletion of Louis Joseph Posner, using stilted language and clumsy phrasing similar to What88's. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Louis_Joseph_Posner. This is the user’s first edit of a WP project page and came within minutes of two 4:30 a.m. edits by blocked sock RobinHood99 to his Talk page, who was inquiring about how to seek an unblock.

The Luckydan89 account has existed since 2008, with edits focusing mainly on on-line poker articles. Despite the general non-intersection of interests between this editor and Lawline’s other socks, the sudden interest in Wikipedia administration – and in this discussion in particular – is highly suspicious. Examination yields a series of small intersections that are, finally, too obscure to be coincidence. The prior CU, with its three-month window, would have missed Luckydan, whose immediately prior edit was in September. I am asking for a CU here to confirm the puppetry, or to absolve Luckydan.

I note the following:

As already noted, Luckydan edited the AfD at 4:55 a.m. This is an uncommon hour for editing at :en, yet RobinHood99 was editing at this time too, indeed only about 20 minutes before Luckydan. RobinHood’s contributions.

The form of the username (noun+2 digit number) is the same as three of Lawline’s socks.

This user's first stab at a User page here reflects the same - Spartan - sensibility as the first efforts of Freedom Fighter, Lawline, What88 and RobinHood.

Finally, Luckydan89 did contribute two small edits to Strip Club, which had also been edited by the Lawline socks. Luckydan's came the day after the first Lawline socks were blocked. Link, link.

It is implausible that a random user with no connection to Lawline and his socks would resume editing in the middle of the night, the day after Lawline’s socks were blocked, to make his first edit on a project page to urge deletion of an article that Lawline’s socks had been equally eager to delete. JohnInDC (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever remaining doubt there may have been, we now have Luckydan offering the 30+ character Talk page section divider favored by Lawline socks - compare Luckydan, What88, RobinHood99. JohnInDC (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Luckydan continues to add material to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Louis_Joseph_Posner, pressing points which - like the prior Lawline socks - reflects an intimate knowledge of the subject that goes far beyond that which has been reported in any of the article's references or other available sources (and which is presumably coming from briefs and other documents filed in one or another of the cases). This edit is typical. JohnInDC (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Using equals signs to create a horizontal rule is pretty much a pathognomic sign of Lawline/What88. Sigh. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had an account with Wikipedia since 2008. My User page indicates college student. This is the only account that I have with Wikipedia. Most of my comments and edits have involved gaming. I have never abused the account.
I heard about the abusive, malicious, and vindictive comments from User:Mendaliv who made an anology between Louis Posner and Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, the major players in the Enron scandal. I was outraged and I gave my opinion on the discussion area for articles for deletion for the subject.Luckydan89 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My Comments in the Articles of Deletion do not reflect any personal knowledge. I have, however, added in the following reference to my Comments: (See, Posner v. The City of New York, et.al., Docket No. CV 4859 (JMF)(SDNY 2013), Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment: Falsifying Business Records in the Second Degree: Voter March, Ltd., pp. 9-10, by Jacobs & Hazan, LLP, Attorneys, May 3, 2013; published by Jonathan S. Gould, Esq. at Scribd.com [[23]]). There is no evidence of sockpuppetry and I vehemently deny any wrongdoing.Luckydan89 (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sock What88 was likewise determined that the obscure "Jonathan S. Gould legal documents" find their way into the discussion, see here and here. JohnInDC (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's always fun when someone thinks their § 1983 lawsuit means anything to anybody else. Here's the interesting thing: these files weren't on Gould's Scribd last time What88 posted something from it. I'd pretty much downloaded everything of reference from there. These § 1983 case motions are new. As an aside, I wonder if Gould should be publishing another attorney's work product on a website that makes the claim it's subject to his own copyright. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Quite suspicious pattern of behavior. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • RobinHood99 and Luckydan89 are  Technically indistinguishable. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • RobinHood99 and Luckydan89 and both blocked indef. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
31 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Posted at the BLPN and the Posner AFD in similar legalistic language to previous sock What 88. As with previous socks, took several edits to get his comments right [24][25][26]. January (talk) 20:47, 31 December 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]
  • Denver982 is  Confirmed. I saw this account when I ran the previous check, but as their edits at the time were not incriminating, I couldn't be sure. The behavior confirms it now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeffed and tagged. Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
03 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Account created December 28, in the middle of prior investigations and blocks. Although this editor has only three edits, it is pretty plainly a sock - there is first the name, which echoes "Lawline"; of the editor's three edits, two were to create User and Talk pages in the unadorned style of almost all Lawline puppets (see Freedom Fighter, FreedomFighter Talk, Lawline, What88, What88 Talk, RobinHood and RobinHood Talk), and third, to make a meaningless edit to my Talk page, in the middle of a section about this editor's puppetry. Although this puppet has made no substantive edits, I can't think of any reason that the account should be permitted to remain active and in evasion of this user's block, and therefore reporting it. Requesting CU to confirm. JohnInDC (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2014 (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]
  • Gouldlaw is  Confirmed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
06 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Recently created account has edited only VoterMarch and the associated AfD. User page is of the usual Lawline type and the editor's Talk page has been filled with the same sort of stuff that prior Lawline socks have previously placed into the article. JohnInDC (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name of course also violates WP:U. JohnInDC (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arises out of the blue to comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/VoterMarch, an article of intereest to Lawline socks.( Iwas rather expecting him.) (I've seen multi edits mentioned as a Lawline trait, but I also do that.) Note the comment there. User page is sparse in a Lawline sort of way. Dlohcierekim 11:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • It's obviously Lawline/What88, just looking at the contribs and manners of writing. Needs a username block anyway. Even though a behavioral block would be fine, there might be new sleepers. This guy is pretty persistent. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a notice re the username. Otherwise, I shouldn't have asked for a CU - this one is obvious on behavioral grounds. JohnInDC (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • At this time, the CU results are  Inconclusive. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • VoterMarch blocked indef as a promotional account. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
09 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


IP 108. has emerged to make early-morning edits to various articles of Lawline interest, including Louis Joseph Posner, VoterMarch, Strip Club and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoterMarch. The edits are of the same self-promotional / POV variety as prior socks, e.g. link. CU not requested for this IP report, as the behavioral evidence is sufficient. JohnInDC (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added IP 170.170.59.139, based on the same reasoning. Lawline has used FedEx terminals in recent weeks and this is another. Edits from this account began minutes after the prior IP was blocked for edit warring. JohnInDC (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding a bit on my prior notation: The 108 IP above, geolocating to NYC, is in the same range as another IP employed in the same fashion as all the Lawline socks - see Special:Contributions/108.176.142.124. I did not report it before because editing had stopped from it. It is plain that this is Lawline. The 170 IP, which geolocates to Dallas, appears to be a FedEx public terminal. Many different people are likely to use that terminal, and so it is unsurprising that it would show a broad range of edits. It is clear however that Lawline has been using FedEx terminals as a mechanism for block evasion, as several characteristic edits have recently appeared from different IPs in the FedEx range. Indeed one has already been blocked as a sock - see Special:Contributions/170.170.59.138. Summing up, both the 108 and 170 IPs exhibit typical Lawine behavior, and they are numerically adjacent to other IPs used by Lawline in the past. These are Lawline. JohnInDC (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added IP 38.98.117.68, a New York based IP that has reverted a change at Louis Posner and begun, on the Talk page of that redirect, to advocate for the content that had been inserted by blocked sock Tonywikido. JohnInDC (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Users Tonywikido and Tulipart were added previously, based on the behavioral evidence below. Those two named editors, as well as the IPs, manifest clear Lawline behavior, namely, immediate, persistent and POV interest in Louis Posner related articles Louis J. Posner, VoterMarch, Strip Club, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoterMarch and Louis Posner. Tulipart has already been blocked as a puppet but a CU including Tulipart may turn up sleepers. This puppet master's history does suggest the possibility of dormant accounts. JohnInDC (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment 170.170.59.139 has many other edits, but the quacking from 108.176.141.200 is deafening. I blocked and unblocked 'cause I feel I'm not being impartial. Dlohcierekim 16:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 170. IP is certainly a Kinko's copy shop computer, which work like cyber cafés (except they're theoretically supposed to be used by businesspeople to prepare documents and such or like a hotel's business center). Anyway, I think it's likely a CU on that IP will not be positive. Even so, if this isn't a sockpuppet of Lawline, it's a meatpuppet, just going by behavior. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain the productive editing history and the sudden arrival after the other anon. Dlohcierekim 21:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The timestamps likewise bear out the singular identity of this editor - IP 108 quits editing at 10:29 today, whereupon IP 170 picks up the keyboard at 10:52 and continues straight through to 12:17. IP 108 returns at 12:43 (having not edited in the meantime) and continues until 12:59. JohnInDC (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more note in case you were tempted to take the geolocate data at face value on the 170. IP: first off, the geolocate tools I can find disagree. The usual Wikipedia one says California, while everywhere else (and the whois) says Dallas. Secondly, FedEx Office (formerly Kinko's) is headquartered in Dallas. It's not terribly unusual for companies to route traffic through some VPN deal before letting it touch the open internet. So, I think any geolocation data should be taken with a grain of salt. The source of the edits may just as well be coming from someplace in Manhattan. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was certainly my assumption - that FedEx or Kinko's or whomever was routing stuff elsewhere first. He's not jetting off to Dallas in order to confound Wikipedia CUs. Also since the IP report returns the information that this is a "confirmed proxy server", it would only make sense that we're not seeing the actual terminal location. JohnInDC (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did not notice that before. I'll have to pay closer attention to that tool in the future. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest we add Tonywikido to this request, who took over trying to create an article at Louis Posner (multi-edit diff) shortly after the 170. IP was trying to do the same (diff (note edit summary)). Same user also added the new Louis Posner article to Posner, and also edited the entry for Louis J. (diff). I will notify Tonywikido, so if there's anything else I needed to do to add the account to the SPI case, I hope someone else can handle that for me. SPI isn't exactly my bailiwick. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just added him. I would note that 1) the account was created late today, after the other subject pages were semi-protected; 2) like all the other Lawline socks, this editor quickly created a sparse User page; 3) this new editor honed right in on a Louis Posner related article, which in itself raises eyebrows; and 4) most tellingly - thanks Mendaliv - Tonywikido picked up right where the 170. IP left off. There are strong indications that this is another sock, though we may need a CU to confirm it. JohnInDC (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have blocked Tony to prevent further disruption pending the outcome here. Dlohcierekim 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that there's been a call to arms on at least one Voter March social media account asking for help with Wikipedia from account holders. I already added {{notavote}} to the specific AfD, but though I'd point it out here since it's evident there's solicitation of meatpuppets going on here. I'll provide the link if it's requested but it's not hard to find. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • New probable sockpuppet, Tulipart. First edits dealt with creating an article dealing with a Voter March event, has a variant of the more recent sock naming convention, and created a meaningless userpage. Then nominated Louis J. Posner for deletion claiming such nomination was on behalf of the article subject. I will notify Tulipart. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedurally - is there any reason to add him if he's now blocked as a sock? JohnInDC (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • May pick up sleepers or more new accounts that might be CU-unrelated to the accounts we know of. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have unblocked Tonywikido (talk · contribs) as he apears to be a bystander cut down in the crossfirer. Dlohcierekim 18:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not object to the unblock of Tonywikido pending the outcome of this SSI, but the evidence above pretty clearly establishes him as a Lawline sock, pursuing the Lawline agenda - most notably, his direct continuation of the efforts of the sock puppet 170. IP to insert material about a different Louis Posner into the mix. JohnInDC (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the other Posner proves notale and if Tony avoids problem edits, then that is fine with me. If he is lawline, he won't be ale to resist the urge for long. So on the one hand we have AGF. On the other, we have WP:ROPE. Assuming I did not run them off with my overzealous block. Dlohcierekim 06:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • He has now thanked you for the unblock, so we'll see! Meanwhile I just wanted with my comment to make it clear that the issue of his puppetry hadn't actually been decided. JohnInDC (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
14 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Account created early this morning, on the heels of the blocks of the many sleepers created by Lawline this week; it immediately proceeded to edit all non-semi-protected Posner-related websites to remove wikilinks and substitute add (improper, in line) external links to the VoterMarch website. E.g. Berkshire School (Posner attended); List of Protest Marches in Washington, DC, Patti Smith, Greg Palast. The tools will show extensive editing of these pages by Lawline and prior socks. Requesting CU to check for the inevitable sleepers; I also strongly recommend blocks of the at least 3 IP addresses associated with Posner, see prior report in the archive, so that I don't have to file an SSI every day. JohnInDC (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the deletion of Voter March and the redirect to Louis J. Posner. Removing the wikilinks was valid, but not substituting the VoterMarch website as an inline EL. I have corrected those edits. JohnInDC (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • This diff pretty much says it all. Lawline is concerned with promoting Voter March while reducing the visibility of the Wikipedia article on Posner. The userspace behavior is pretty characteristic too, even if not suspicious on its own. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also concur with moderate-length hardblocks of the 108' and 38' IPs in Lawline's SSP category. Both 108' and 38' are noted as static IPs, and the contribs history shows no particular interest in anything other than Lawline's area of activity. As to the 170' IP, I would suggest a long-term anonblock since it seems to be a shared exit node for Kinko's/FedEx rental computer network and may impact many users. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmed via CU on Commons. Connected to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Masterkeysid. INeverCry 18:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Both accounts blocked indef per behavior and CU findings. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


New account that immediately began engaging in keyword sanitizing for Louis J. Posner-related articles. Specifically, this edit, which had been done by a Lawline IP previously indicates it's Lawline. The other edits by the account mostly consist of blanking other redirect pages (e.g., [27]). Checkuser requested to ferret out sleepers, which Lawline is known to create. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Obvious sock. I concur in the CU request and again urge at least a temporary block of the underlying IP addresses, two of which are used by Lawline alone and two of which would only inconvenience a few Kinko's users, to slow the incessant creation of socks by this editor, and the constant need to file SSIs. JohnInDC (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with this. While I know CUs aren't allowed to link IPs to user accounts, I think the behavioral evidence in the case of these IPs is conclusive enough to support a block based on behavior, even if we aren't seeing anonymous editing at present from those addresses. The behavioral indications are strong that the accounts are connecting through these IPs. Furthermore, the situation with 170.170.59.139 counsels our applying a {{anonblock}} for a few months. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lawline/Archive&oldid=1141880187"