Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FLPTrainor/Archive

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Filing empty case per request by CheckUser. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Old results stolen from Alison:












 * And the new accounts:
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Case renamed to /FLPTrainor. Tagging the accounts now. NW ( Talk ) 22:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. NW ( Talk ) 22:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by MER-C
These accounts are abusing Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting justia.com, typically one article per user. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Mar 1. (Have fun blocking them.) MER-C 10:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Please check that these editors are not all from an identical IP address. If so, they are probably sock puppets. If they are from the same IP range, but not the same address, then can we check to make sure the IP range isn't one from a university or law school? I'm wondering it could have been an assignment or a bunch of students acting in unison without being Wikipedia editors in the first place. Also, maybe an editor who prefers the for-profit FindLaw might be doing this in an attempt to get Justia kicked from Wikipedia. Please resolve these points in your investigation. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the users added below may also be related. Each of these accounts (with one exception) made only one edit to a different U.S. Supreme Court article, all within a short period of time on February 22, and none since. The edits to SCOTUS articles always replaced wikilinks to court case articles with full URLs. In these cases, however, the URLs were to the Wikipedia articles instead of Justia, but it's otherwise the same behavior, and the one user that made himself a user page did so in a manner similar to those above, with a brief signed note. Perhaps it was a practice run? postdlf (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by MER-C 10:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The above list is probably not the end of the story, plus an IP block would be appreciated. MER-C 10:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See if we can get an IP block or rangeblock and to check if there are any sleepers or accounts missed. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 15:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * . This is definitely not an innocent school project. It is a reincarnation of FLPTrainor (Sockpuppet investigations/FLPTrainor/Archive), which had the same MO. There are actually a lot more accounts on the IP ranges than you have listed, so this will take a little while. Dominic·t 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dominic-T: So, since this is not a uni./law school, can we also check to make sure this user is not coming from Justia's IP range? If it's not Justia, then it deserves to have its name cleared. -- Foofighter20x (talk)
 * I independently stumbled on this sockfarm yesterday. I think I took out the whole thing, but I am not certain. J.delanoy gabs adds  01:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Marking as completed. J.delanoy got 'em. The relevant accounts (~150 or so) has been blocked and tagged already. Tim Song (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)