Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RRIESQ/Archive

12 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All of the above are WP:SPA's tied to the Lavely & Singer law firm. They edit articles about individuals they claim to represent, typically with aggressive edit summaries claiming to remove defamatory/false/POV/unsourced content. Disagreements are usually followed with WP:PETTIFOGing. In the case of Laura Kightlinger, the accounts have been on a crusade to decrease the age of the subject. I've sourced the DOB to 1964, but the various accounts change it to 1969 either without sources or citing IMDB (obviously not a RS).
 * RRIESQ (RRI=Robbins Research International?): Claims to be "Robbins Research International" and has made legal threats under the name "Lavely & Singer P.C.. Robbins Research International is "An Anthony Robbins Company" and Lavely & Singer represents Tony Robbins.  Edited Tony Robbins (an obvious conflict of interest).
 * L&S-ESQS (L&S=Lavely & Singer?): Claims that the account is under my firm name". Claims to be the "Attorneys for Stan Lee" and "Kightlinger legal rep". Lavely & Singer represents Stan Lee. Claims that "I act to correct inaccurate information on behalf of a client".  Edited Stan Lee, Stan Lee Media, Laura Kightlinger.
 * 76.175.97.9: Admits to being CPESQS.
 * CPESQS (CP=Century Park?): Claims (via IP 76.175.97.9) to represent Laura Kightlinger. Edited David Hasselhoff, Laura Kightlinger, Tony Robbins
 * 38.104.78.50: Admits to being CPESQS and the IP's hostname resolves to "lavely-and-singer.demarc.cogentco.com"
 * SCalEsq (SCal=Southern California?): Edited Tony Robbins and Laura Kightlinger

At the very least this is WP:MEATpuppetry. TDL (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment - I think the law firm should be civilly, without attacking, be encouraged to get organized, allocate a clear username per individual user (can be pseudonyms). I can (but will not yet) take point on this, if anyone wants. They should simply, and concisely, declare their interest at their individual User pages. They should always log in and never edit without logging in. And because they share an IP address (the firm), should never interact at the same articles. For example, only the rep or atty for Laura Kightlinger should make suggestions for improvements in Talk:Laura Kightlinger, per WP:COI. I have an ulterior motive - I want them to CC3.0BYSA release a recent publicity or casual photo of Kightlinger. But I don't want to cross the streams as long as there's any sort of investigation. --Lexein (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Following up, I've requested that User talk:L&S-ESQS change the username, with explanation. Comment? Should I replicate that request on the other user talk pages? --Lexein (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Following up immediately post-block, it was too bad that none of the principals chose to respond, and that the softblocks were therefore required. I rather hoped that in the interest of their clients with BLPs, they would have shown more interest. --Lexein (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm looking into this; I doubt a CU is needed or anything. There is OTRS correspondence I am handling and it is probably best served by my talking to them there. --Errant (chat!) 08:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've placed this on hold pending the outcome of the above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment on this again, sorry for the silence. No response has been forthcoming to the OTRS correspondence. The people involved are aware of our policies and procedures now, this is not sockpuppeting exactly - several people being involved in the matter, with the primary concern being a legitimate desire to correct errors with their clients biographies (even if they used the wrong method). I don't know what the standard response here is; some of the accounts probably need soft blocking in line with our naming policy. But I don't think a CU is needed as WP:DUCK clearly applies. --Errant (chat!) 12:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * - I agree that there's no need for CU in this case. All four role accounts should probably be softblocked, but I'll leave that to another admin's discretion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Best action is to softblock in this case. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Softblocked all four accounts. As there was an explanation through OTRS. NativeForeigner Talk 19:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)