Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doctorlaw/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by RJC
Users are new and single purpose accounts that pursue the same line on American Academy of Financial Management, Chartered Wealth Manager, and Articles for deletion/Chartered Wealth Manager (2nd nomination). They share the same style, as well, including their description of the firm/product involved, details of their arguments, using the article talk page for deletion discussions, and forgetting to sign everything. These are articles with histories of WP:COI Sockpuppeting.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ the following: However,
 * Seems likely, but a CU would be helpful to ensure it, and also to check for sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * are (according to the technical data) ❌ - which is quite surprising to me. TN X Man  19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the three confirmed accounts for puppeting, and I've blocked the other two as being ducks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per this comment left on my talk page, I've added another user to the list. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ again. TN X Man  11:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ again. TN X Man  11:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Being bold and blocking that new account; I find it incredibly unlikely that a brand new user's first two edits would be an AfD and RfC. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by RJC
New account pursuing same WP:ARTSPAM-esque edits to same articles, created a day after the puppet master and his associated puppets were blocked. These articles tend not to get a lot of traffic (one is up for AfD for lack of notability after having been recreated by one of Doctorlaw's socks), so the fact that a new user would puff up these particular articles with spam immediately after a known puppet master was blocked smells fishy.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - I don't think we need CU for this. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

01 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

Clear attempt to circumvent permanent block by resurrecting a dormant account established prior to that block. Financiallawyer is pursing the same edits, with the same edit summaries, as Doctorlaw, a user blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and as IP addresses whose disruptive WP:ARTSPAM edits caused American Academy of Financial Management to be semi-protected for six months.  RJC  TalkContribs 22:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
– User is likely on some sort of a mobile device or notebook, as, even though ISPs are different went from static to a random wi-fi connection. Otherwise, everything else is a match on technical grounds. –MuZemike 22:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

22 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

New user Cfpcertified has jumped in to editing the same articles as the now-banned Doctorlaw, pushing the same edits with the same bias and "evidence." Cfpcertified's username also follows a similar pattern, shared by other socks, of claiming some credential or designation (see Globalprofessor, Financiallawyer).  RJC  TalkContribs 03:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Some requested diffs from Doctorlaw, known socks, and this user. All seek to put forward AAFM statements that counter a Wall Street Journal article as true and to bend the article in the direction of ARTSPAM. Note also the similar tone in talk page discussions, the tendency to call mistakes illegal and defamatory, etc.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cfpcertified edit
 * Cfpcertified talk


 * I added CertifiedFinancialAnalyst to the list, because in checking my talk page it seems that this user made the exact same requests a year ago.      RJC  TalkContribs 16:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the diffs, but, unfortunately, it is a moot point as the master and known socks are for CheckUser purposes. This case will have to be decided on behavioral evidence. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Same target article, same POV issues, similar edit summaries, username fitting the earlier pattern, obvious long-time interest in the page ("")... I think we can call it a WP:DUCK here. Jafeluv (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both sockpuppets. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

01 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Yet another sock in American_Academy_of_Financial_Management. Whealthadvise removes the same sentence from the lead as User:Cfpcertified, a checkuser-confirmed sock of Doctorlaw (compare to . Similar style of writing, similar POV, etc. Yesterday I gave a last warning to Wealthadvise and I asked him if he was related to Doctorlaw, and the next the day the IP issued a legal threat against me and other editors. Enric Naval (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Due to their legal threat, I think we need to get an IP block on AAFM. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . A rationale to show that a check is needed has not been provided. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is really a matter for the WMF and I've sent Legal an email. Rschen7754 03:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

05 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Quack. Sum mer PhD (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Very loud quack, indeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Blocked and tagged. Jafeluv (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

02 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Quack. Sum mer PhD (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The legal threats (as previously mentioned by this proxy-server/IP) are still extant on the organization's website. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked. Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

20 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User editing the same page as a permanently banned user, pursuing the same whitewashed goal, using the same arguments that the current article violates POV. (diff diff diff) (confirmed sock diff confirmed sock diff confirmed sock diff) This happens every year or so, sometimes more often. The user pages for Doctorlaw's socks also tended to be just a repetition of the user name, like EconomicTiger. The last time EconomicTiger's edits were reverted, User:Socialjustus made legal threats and was banned before a sockpuppet investigation could commence (see this edit); EconomicTiger then withdrew from activity on the page and so no sockpuppet investigation was launched.  RJC  TalkContribs 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I had a break on Wikipedia for a different issue which is nothing to with AAFM. User:RJC applies his/her Synthesis everywhere. This is a pure Synthesis and OR, "The user pages for Doctorlaw's socks also tended to be just a repetition of the user name, like EconomicTiger. The last time EconomicTiger's edits were reverted, User:Socialjustus made legal threats and was banned before a sockpuppet investigation could commence (see this edit); EconomicTiger then withdrew from activity on the page and so no sockpuppet investigation was launched."

This editor while claiming I am whitewashing, he himself or she herself has something deep in stake against the AAFM where they dispute with me. There are number of possible Sockpuppets and Meatpuppets to support him/her.EconomicTiger (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see SummerPhD's comment on Talk:AAFM. Also note the connected AN/I report here.  It's telling that EconomicTiger's reaction to any editor who opposes his edits is that they must be doing so because they have something against AAFM (although in my case they got their wires crossed and claimed that I was in some way in league with AAFM). BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added User:Beyond8 to the sock list. Brand-new editor, their first (and only at this point) edit is a comment at Talk:AAFM with the same old tired complaints we've heard many times before from Doctorlaw: how other editors are biased against the organization, etc. etc. etc.  Obviously a sock, quacks and all. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * CU, please check whether User:Beyond My Ken and User:Pinkbeast are sock puppeting; the timing of their edits here and here deems to think so.EconomicTiger (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe there is sockpuppetry, you will need to open a new case. Please see Sockpuppet investigations for instructions. That said, this isn't very compelling. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a personal observation, as a user who has edited the AAFM article. The writing style of this user reminds of some socks of Doctorlaw. The personal attacks by the new account also reminds me of the same style. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hesitated to write this before, because I didn't want to influence the report one way or the other, but given DORD's report below... While EconomicTiger's style was and is reminiscent of Doctorlaw's, when Beyond8 popped up they really sounded like Doctorlaw. I'd suggest a duck block if the editor starts up again. Also -- and I may have asked this before -- way aren't typical data kept on socks so that they don't go "stale"?  The current system makes it relatively easy to simply wait long enough before re-socking, secure in the knowledge that they can't be connected to old socks.  If some representative data was kept so that CUs could access it and use it to compare to current suspected socks, it might cut down on socking. BMK (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @DORD - Thanks for the explanation, it's appreciated. BMK (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm convinced that Economic Tiger's edits are disruptive and that there is some evidence that they are related to the other accounts, but I believe a CU is needed to verify that. I'm unwilling to block on duck. It's also worth pointing out that if Doctorlaw is not the master here. Doctorlaw was created in 2009. Economic Tiger was created in 2007. Worse still, a confirmed sock, Globalprofessor, was created in 2006.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * EconomicTiger is editing from a mobile network on the other side of the world from Doctorlaw and known socks, and without current CU data, there's not much I can conclude about Beyond8. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BMK, there is a repository for such information, but there are no records for this sockmaster. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to close this with a warning to. Based on the CU results, I am not blocking you for sock puppetry. However, as I said at the outset, your editing pattern has been disruptive, including veiled legal threats, copyright violations, and edit warring. If you persist in this conduct, I or another administrator may sanction you (Beyond8 has been indeffed by another administrator). At some point after I close this, I will change the master to Globalprofessor.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User:Doctorlaw and their sock, User:Globalprofessor were effectively SPAs to insert promotional material into the American Academy of Financial Management article. Sprintnoodle was created 13 October 2016, and has been inserting similar material ever since (Note: curently on a 72-hour block for it). Further, each of these accounts' editing styles contain the same idiosyncracy: use of caps in sentences, particularly 'WIKI' for wikipedians. For Sprintnoodle, see, for the sockmaster, see. Commentary style similar in general, as is their article interaction. No CU as other accounts presumably stale by now. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi.  18:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Blocked per WP:DUCK, worth checking for sleepers though. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - Katietalk 14:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No sleepers found. The technical signature is pretty clear but he's using VPNs or proxies so I can't nail it down. Looks like it could be whack-a-mole for a while. Katietalk 15:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)