Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Labor Watch/Archive

Evidence submitted by Wasted Time R
Labor reporter added contentious, excessively weighted, and poorly-quality-sourced material to the United States Department of Labor article with this edit of April 2. It was subsequently removed or toned down by two editors, Yworo and Wasted Time R. Labor reporter reinserted it with this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. After being reverted every time, then all of a sudden Labor Watch shows up to reinsert it with this edit.

I believe Labor Watch and Labor reporter are one and the same. Note that much of the discussion of the content of these edits has occurred at User talk:Wasted Time R rather than on article talk pages. On this talk page, Labor reporter first appears with this edit, then here, here, etc., then all of a sudden Labor Watch appears to carry on the argument with this post here.

Labor reporter and Labor Watch have noted stylistic similarities. The user page of each consists of just one labor-related image, nothing else. Looking at their edit histories, they both focus on labor-related topics. They both create new articles about Department of Labor officials, compare for instance this creation and this talk page creation by Labor Watch with this creation and this talk page creation by Labor reporter. They have both edited some fairly obscure labor-related pages, such as Template:DOL agencies. One created Office of Labor-Management Standards and the other is the only other editor to make a significant change to it. The layout, level of sophistication, style of references, etc. in their edits are all very similar.

Labor Watch is the older account, going back to 2007, which has in fact made some reasonable edits and additions to WP. It looks to me like Labor reporter was created on April 2, 2010, expressly for the purpose of adding the the contentious material to the United States Department of Labor article and the same material to the Hilda Solis article. But now, beginning just now on Sept 2, after a dormant period of a few months, Labor reporter starts doing some reasonable edits as well as carrying on the long-term attempt to get this junk into United States Department of Labor, and Labor Watch starts doing reversions on that article as well.

This is indeed harmful sockpuppeting, because I had previously conceded on the above-mentioned talk page that I was out of reverts at one point and because there are two editors explicitly opposed to this material being added. This socking makes it easier for this person to avoid 3RR violations and also gives the false impression that opinion is equally divided (two versus two) on this material when it is not. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
For the record, I don't use sockpuppets and have no connection with user:Labor Watch. I'm completely astounded by this as I think I edited on one page as Labor Watch. I think that User:Wasted Time R is a bit paranoid and is a cyber bully. Labor Watch (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * I'm not convinced of an attempt to deceive here, so I'd advocate a warning rather than a ban. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
It would seem these two accounts are related, given technical data and behavioral evidence described above. TN X Man 03:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Tnxman307's findings, as I was checking at the same time. Same geographical locations, ISPs, and other information. –MuZemike 03:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sock blocked, user given last warning. If they sock, indef block. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

04 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * 1) Checkuser ✅ and  as socks based on technical correlation and behavioral evidence, at Wikinews. (This case.)
 * 2) Diff to sockmaster account adding link to page created by sock.
 * 3) is blocked locally here as a sock of.
 * 4) Requesting local CU check here, for blocks, admin action, other possible sleeper socks, and underlying IPs. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This user has appeared and become disruptive on Wikinews. I note the Labor Watch master account is not present on Wikinews; instead, Labor reporter is the primary account there. Labor reporter was, of course, confirmed as a Labor Watch sock here in the previous case and blocked.
 * Additional comments by Blood Red Sandman

At the above-linked CheckUser req on WN, an attempt was made to establish if the named IP in this report was the same as Labor reporter. This was inconclusive but the CheckUser agreed the evidence was nonetheless strong enough for a block. That would be the end of it; now comes the bit relevant to Wikipedia.

Newport Backbay was also established as a sock of this user on the WN CU. This sock is active on WP. See also this diff, a cross-project reference to the article the user was working on and got diruptive upon with the Labor reporter account and the IP: history.

The short story here is that a user who has a previous WP socking block is now running at least one more sock on WP, possibly more. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2012 (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
It's Labor reporter and Newport Backbay are the same. No comment on the IP. TN X Man 15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Combine that with this diff of adding a link to an article created by, and it's pretty conclusive. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)