Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianLawMan/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I noticed these two users editing the same pages (particularly Big Six (law firms)), with very similar edit summaries. I placed notifications on the respective talk page of each user (sockmaster, sock), advising of the policy.

I received a reply on AustralianLawMan's talk page, purportedly from that user, but while the user was logged in as AustralianLegalRankings. In particular, note the reply says 'me and ALR' while actually logged in as ALR. In the reply, the user denies using multiple accounts. For fairness - it appears this user has not yet edited 'in overlap', or used the sock for explicitly disruptive purposes (such as edit warring). However, they are continuing to deny using an alternative account in the face of fairly incontrovertible evidence that they are. They are using the accounts to make the same kinds of edits which are potentially problematic for violating WP:NPOV.

Note that the most recent edit to the page I linked first asserts that the changes have been 'reviewed' by other users, seemingly including the suspected sock in that count.

I don't think CheckUser is required given the clear-cut nature of this case, and have not requested it. Thanks. Local Variable (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * don't you just love self-incrimination - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 14:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's about as close to a smoking gun as you can get in this context. Local Variable (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for completeness (I omitted this from my initial statement), the user has also added a comment on the talk page, challenging the removal of certain content, on the basis that  Hate to play the majority card, but two other people than I have a similar view. I believe the third person refers to the IP user User:49.177.64.138 who was just cleaning up some of the edits, and not really endorsing them. Local Variable (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Usually I'd decline this as not socking (no chronological overlap, could be a forgotten password) and uw-agf-sock both of them...but that's been done and they denied the relationship. I'm pretty confident that they're related in some way, and them denying the relationship suggests that they're trying to create the appearance of a false consensus (what with one reverting to the other's final version of Big Six). I am inclined to block for the lying + using multiple accounts to create a false consensus on the "right" version of the page, but I'd like someone else's opinion here. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, screw it - this does appear to be an attempt at false consensus. both accounts, closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Diogenhty, a new account, seems focused on erasing the term Big Six in the few law firm articles they've edited. This was focus of AustralianLawMan and their sock AustralianLegalRankings at Big Six (law firms): Removing "Big Six" from King & Wood Mallesons: Diogenhty ; AustralianLawMan ; and from Ashurst Australia: ; and from Herbert Smith Freehills: AustralianLaw Man - . .
 * Diogenhty edit repeating substance of AustralianLawMan's edit and AustralianLegalRankings, previous sock's, edit where they determinedly inserted undue "top-tier law firms" had replaced "Big Six":
 * as with ChilledIntentions: in this set of edits in March 2023; Feb 2023; and here; August 2022 (many variations of this edit over time)

While ChilledIntentions has not edited for months, so no overlap, Diogenhty's immediate reinstatement of ALM's / ChilledIntentions edits at Big Six (law firms) seems like an attempt to continue those edits that faced opposition. (Perhaps?) AukusRuckus (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC) AukusRuckus (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Above is not a very good job: It's more a demonstration of Chilled's edit warring, than socking. Maybe this diff will show the case better – Diogenhty returned to the exact same article version as created in March by ChilledIntentions. It uses SYNTH to support undue claim: the term only applying "prior to 2012"; inserting now "characterised by the concept of top tier".
 * As for ChilledIntention being related to ALM / ALR, can only show a suggestive "chain":
 * (1) a direct comparison of last AustralianLegalRankings edit with first ChilledIntention edit; (and (2) cf. "last" ALR edit compared to Chilled's first "full set" of edits).
 * They are a couple of months apart, but show the same synth. Below are some intervening diffs that might help clairfy:
 * This diff is the edit that is ALR's "base" edit from (1), the above head-to-head diff
 * and this shows the first of the set of edits where Chilled comes in to begin restoring ALR's version as shown in (1)
 * These go back a long way, and there's no overlap in time, but it seems to me to be a determined, if slow-motion, effort to have their preferred version maintained, in the face of opposition, but without the bother of discussing or gaining consensus. It's a very niche viewpoint that seems too characteristic to be coincidence.
 * Whether this is helpful and clarifies, or has confused things more, I have no clear idea! Found this really hard to explain, sorry. Over to the experts now. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

User:AustralianLawMan and User:Diogenhty both made edits to some pages in common Interaction Timeline. Also, both of them mark everything as minor edits. Looks like a obvious sock. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Hmm - they're all SPAs with interest in the same article. ChilledIntentions was created not long after the previous accounts were blocked, edited sporadically with a few months between bursts, last edited in May of this year, Diogenhty created last week (forgotten password?). ChilledIntentions's final few edits were large removals of content, which is exactly what Diogenhty started with. I'm blocking as suspected.  Girth Summit  (blether)  19:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)