Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susanburkelawyer/Archive

18 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

While doing recent change patrol of new user contribs I noticed the edit history of the page for Susan L. Burke which had edits from 3 fairly new users that all have very similar usernames. Susanburkelawyer made its first edit on Feb 6, 2012; Lawyer1234 made its first edit on Feb 7, 2012; and Lawyer5678 made its first edit on April 11, 2012. Each username has edited exclusively on the Susan L. Burke page. On April 11 Susanburkelawyer stopped editing at 14:43 and Lawyer5678 started editing at 14:49. Edits were made (many with no edit summaries) that removed a lot of content and references:, ,. There's more but it seems pretty clear that these usernames are the same person based on the names and edit histories. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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



New user has popped up and started editing the same article in a similar fashion. JanetteDoe (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ as each other:



However, Susanburkelawyer is ❌ to the above three socks. I have blocked the above three socks and its underlying IP. --MuZemike 21:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, no comment with regard to the above-reported IP address. --MuZemike 21:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Marking for close. TN X Man  19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

18 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets



It looks like there is a whole new drawer of WP:SPAs / WP:SOCKs. Can we get checkuser on the following, who have exclusively edited Susan L. Burke. Also, the first username listed is in the same vein as previously blocked socks, aka LawyerNNNN. Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Editing history matches the previous socks in the archives. Let's see if there are any other socks in the drawer we're missing. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 22:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * is to, Marogers.mar has one other alternate account, with no abuse. There is another user that is also another user is  also, but absent of behavioral evidence, I can't make any conclusions. At this time, all others seem ❌, surprisingly. Behavioral evidence is going to be your best defense in this case. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't consider any of this activity to be especially actionable, nor do I see any compelling behavioural evidence that suggests the technical conclusion drawn above is wrong. The master's username is a source of concern, but I see no point in pursuing the provisions of our username policy with an account that seems to be out of use. Closing without action, and marking for archival. AGK  [•] 12:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

17 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Long-term COI on. Some of these are already blocked for abusing multiple accounts (Lawyer1234, Lawyer567, Lawyer5678, Paralegal65). Obvious WP:DUCK. One common feature is changing "personal injury lawyer" to "Human rights lawyer" and/or adding peacock language such as "has gained widespread fame". However, as there has never been an SPI filed, they've never really been formally connected for the record. (oops, not sure how I missed the previous ones, must have made a typo). Yworo (talk) 22:19, 17 February 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

 * Juniorjackjlc is the only one still editing. Was considering a CU but everything else is stale. Rschen7754 11:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd lean towards a CU just on the basis that I'm pretty sure he's a sock and it might potentially flush out some sleepers. However, it's all relative to how disruptive we actually think this user will continue to be. NativeForeigner Talk 23:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * - - A brand new editor drops out of nowhere to promote a BLP subject whose article has a previous issue of massive promotional sockpuppetry? Endorsing check on, whose entire edit history is doing just that. The actions themselves are not necessarily damning, but these edits should not be done with socks. The other accounts are stale, but have been previously checkusered, so there might be something to compare to, and there might be sleepers given the number of previous socks. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * based on geographic location. I'm afraid that I can't really do anything better than that. T. Canens (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All now blocked as socks of User:Percy Pissnose. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I erroneously stated in Percy's SPI case that, , and were socks of his, which led to these accounts being identified with that sock farm. Looking at it again, while these accounts are definitely socks of each other, and almost certainly socks of SBL, they do not appear to be related to Percy. I have changed the tags for the accounts that needed it to reflect this, sorry for the confusion.  J.delanoy gabs adds  04:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked the duck and closing. Rschen7754 19:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

1 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both accounts (now blocked by me) have either edited the archived SPI's for this case, or have accused other admins of being Susanburkelawyer. Filing for the record, and asking for a CU to see if there are sleepers, and to see if targeted hard block/range block is practical. Do I understand User:Susanburkelawyer isn't actually involved? If so, should this be moved to some other name? I'm slightly confused. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Added Favvonn, as they were vandalizing my page while I was writing this SPI, following in the footsteps of Da Yaj, and I haven't had that happen for a while so I assume they're related. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 1 March 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

 * - Three new accounts created just to harass other editors, and one of them had been a sleeper. Requesting CU to look for more sleepers. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following are who has been known to impersonate other users and other socks:
 * A boat load of other socks I won't mention here per WP:DENY that are already blocked.
 * A boat load of other socks I won't mention here per WP:DENY that are already blocked.
 * A boat load of other socks I won't mention here per WP:DENY that are already blocked.
 * A boat load of other socks I won't mention here per WP:DENY that are already blocked.
 * A boat load of other socks I won't mention here per WP:DENY that are already blocked.


 * from the archive is ❌ to YAJ.
 * is ❌ to anything listed here, but looks to be part of a user talk attack sockteam in which I can't identity the true master of because of highly shared IPs. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All socks blocked. Not tagging due to ambiguity over who is whose sock, deny, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)