Internalb

Internalb (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 July 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

All removing maintenance templates from the Adam Leitman Bailey article which is being edited by an intern from the company. TeapotgeorgeTalk 12:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Confirmed & blocked the accounts listed above, also blocked an underlying IP. --Versageek 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

07 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


(This is meat puppetry, not “abuse of multiple accounts”. My understanding is that such cases are to be presented here nonetheless. In addition, the subject editor has in recent hours lapsed into disruptive editing, which I describe here rather than in another WP forum.)

Prior to July 2011, the Adam Leitman Bailey article had been the target of a series of sockpuppets, all apparently interns at or otherwise affiliated with the attorney Bailey, which puppets persistently removed maintenance templates noting the promotional tone of the article and heavy COI editing. The eventual SSI report can be viewed here. The puppets were blocked July 20, 2011.

The account for User:Falconclaw5000 was created in 2007 and was not identified or picked up in the SSI investigation, nor was the account blocked. Falconclaw, however, is or was also an intern at Bailey’s firm, as this log entry shows. As set forth below, many of his edits suffer precisely the same COI / POV flaws of those of the blocked puppet interns.

Removal of templates.

First instance. Following the SSI block above, on July 27, 2011, the COI and advertisement templates were restored. (Diff here). They remained in place until September 23, when they were removed by Falconclaw, without comment, on his first edit to the subject article. Diff.

(Falconclaw by that time had accumulated perhaps 350-450 edits, and is not an SPA.)

Second instance. On April 10, 2012, a distinterested editor added back in the COI tag, diff here. On June 11, 2012, Falconclaw removed the template, diff here, complaining disingenuously in the edit summary that potential conflicts of interest were not documented on the Talk page.

Restoration of apparent promotional material.

After the interns were blocked, various editors undertook to clean up the more obvious promotional items in the article. Here, on August 21, 2011, a distinterested editor removed material relating to the “crane collapse settlement”. While the actual collapse was covered by third party sources, Bailey’s representation of one of the building’s tenants and a subsequent settlement with the building’s owner was not. All lawyers represent clients and win settlements and there seemed to be little or nothing to distinguish this episode from routine lawyer work. On October 7, 2011, an IP editor with a contribution history matching that of Falconclaw restored the crane collapse material without comment. Edit here, IP editor contribution history here.

Recent disruptive editing.

Most recently, Falconclaw reverted several IP edits wholesale as “vandalism” despite the fact that the IP editor, prior to making the edits, had announced its intention to make the edits on the article Talk page. Link. Following Falconclaw’s reversion, I twice undertook to restore the IP editor’s work, with pleas to discuss the matter at Talk; Falconclaw twice more restored his preferred version. Following his third restoration, wary of a reversion war and mindful that the IP editor may well have gone too far, I undertook a series of more modest edits, each accompanied by a Talk page entry. Falconclaw reverted these wholesale as well.

By this time I had become aware of the COI and again restored my edits. The matter rests more or less there as I make this entry.

Falconclaw has made many other edits to the page, some of which appear to be further undertakings on behalf of his employer, e.g., this June 11, 2012 edit adding another case description to the article, but many of the others appear to be neutral. (I have not reviewed them all.)

Falconclaw at first denied any association with Bailey despite the log evidence, and when I drew his attention again to the log, he removed his denial and as well as my Talk comment evidencing his COI. Diff here.

In sum, Falconclaw is yet another Bailey intern whose COI causes him to undo the good faith efforts of neutral editors to bring the page in line with Wikipedia policies, which recently has also entailed edit warring, bad faith (“I’ve never met Bailey”), and disruptive editing (removing my Talk page comment). JohnInDC (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added two more suspected sockpuppets; these two (so-far SPA) accounts were created today and went immediately to the subject article to restore prior POV language or to remove unfavorable material. This is precisely the pattern that prior puppets employed to maintain POV on this page. JohnInDC (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, one of the two did add two relevant and reliable sources; favorable to be sure, but entirely proper. The evidence of sock- or meatpuppetry remains no less convincing, however. JohnInDC (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Behavioural investigation no Unnecessary: 38.96.167.42 (inactive) and Harper0321 (inactive, throw-away account). Please re-open an investigation into these if either or both accounts resurface.

Behaviourally speaking, Falconclaw5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously Internalb. I have indefinitely blocked and tagged that account. This was not a checkuser action. Marking for archival, AGK [•] 19:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Previous sockpuppet report (Sept. 7) resulted in the block of one user, Falconclaw5000, as a sockpuppet. No action was taken against three other SPA accounts reported at the same time, two of them for the reason that they had fallen inactive. No reason was given on the third - Antiapathy54 - but the omission appears to have been inadvertent inasmuch as the behavioral evidence was the same for all. (All of this is shown in the archive for this sockmaster.) The blocking admin indicated that a new report should be filed if the dormant accounts were revived, and that has happened, with Antiapathy returning today to restore a substantially earlier, promotional version of the subject page and removing the COI maintenance template. See this recent diff. JohnInDC (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harper0321 is one of the two accounts that were expressly not blocked, as dormant, previously. Harper0321 has reappeared and I have added him back to the list as an sock / meatpuppet of Internalb and Antiapathy. Antiapathy was blocked last night, around 7:30 my time for disruptive editing (see link) and barely 12 hours later Harper0321 emerged to comment on the talk page of the article of his (presumed) employer. See this diff. Harper0321 has not attempted to edit the article (yet), but casting his vote in support of the position of other sock and meatpuppets is an abuse of the account. JohnInDC (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
More