Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oppo212/Archive

Additional Information

Introduction

There were a number of issues with Oppo212 and Jbowersox. They were banned, i believe, for sock puppetry. Jbowersox was a self-described attorney, apparently working for the Burke Group, while editing The Burke Group article. Oppo212 initially attempted to delete the Burke Group article, and i believe there were votes to delete by obvious sock puppets. Both were also found to have made false edits which did not represent their sources. All the while, Oppo212 and Jbowersox created edits that made unions look bad, and that made the Burke Group look good. (Happy to provide examples from Oppo212 and other early sock puppets by request, i've focused mostly on the two most recent sock puppets.)

Rcodella, like Oppo212 and Jbowersox, seeks to play down the role of The Burke Group as a union busting consultant.

The Burke Group Article

Here is Rcodella, in The Burke Group article:

"web research reveals no anti union marketing or TBG authored anti-union literature, advertising, newsletters, blogs, twitter messages, press releases, newspaper editorials, industry journals, books, or interviews." [30]

That promptly puzzled one other editor, who removed the comment about process with the question, "'web research'?" [31]

Oppo212 was prone to inserting similar comments into articles:

"What tactics did the CWU trade union employ? Didn't the CWU also meet with employees and use persuasion? How many failures has this union experienced? Compare apples to apples. No fair to only discuss one side of the point of view." [32]

But here's an even better example of the same thing -- process, namely a reference to research methods ("web research"/"quick internet search") entered into an article by Jbowersox:

"...a quick internet search will reveal that similar firms exist outside the United States." [33]

Rcodella, Oppo212 and Jbowersox are the same person. The "smoking gun" is in the patterns, the idiosyncrasies, the targets, and the identical ideologies.

Let's nitpick a bit. Rcodella typed:

"...web research reveals..."

Jbowersox typed something different:

"internet search will reveal..."

The difference is somewhat reconciled when, in the next edit, Jbowersox changed it to read:

"internet search reveals..." [34]

Remember, these are edits of articles, not of TALK pages. How many editors use such unique references to the research process in articles?

Rcodella, like Jbowersox, seeks to burnish reputation of the company, making the Wikipedia article about the company sound like a sales brochure.

Here is Rcodella, in The Burke Group article:

"This service provides clients with labor relations professionals who talk directly to employees during organizing campaigns providing them the opportunity to ask questions and get answers from management direclty rather than from union organizers only. [...] The supervisors and managers at most companies are not bi-lingual, they do not know the law (National Labor Relations Act) nor can they be expected to answer employee questions in the short time frame of a union organizing campaign." (emphasis added) [35]

and,

"Although their business has reportedly been international in scope since its inception, their services increased in the EU "after the Employee Relations Act (ERA 1999)" [36]

and,

UK employers may seek the services of labor relations consultants such as TBG and/or legal counsel to assist them thru the new law's complexities. (emphasis added)[37]

and,

"Their services are also directed toward business development via skills assessments, and leadership training etc. unrelated to union activity." [38]

and,

"When direct communications known as third party persuading are required, TBG recommends" its U.S. clients work with Labor Information Services, Inc. [39]

Labor Information Services (LIS) is a part of The Burke Group.

Now, compare that language to this quotation from the Burke Group website, this time added to the article by Jbowersox:

"communication is key during organizing campaigns. Employees want and deserve to hear both pro employer and pro union arguments in order to make an informed choice before voting in a union election. Union organizers are experienced at running union membership campaigns whereas employers have little if any experience on how to respond to them when this activity presents itself. Once union activity becomes apparent, employers generally seek TBG and/or legal counsel in order to be better able to respond accurately and lawfully to employees. Management must exercise a high degree of diligence when communicating with its workers so as not to risk committing any unfair labor practices or ULP’s. TBG promotes that all employees exercise their democratic right to vote in a secret ballot election to either remain union free or choose union recognition." (emphasis added) [40]

Rcodella likewise quotes from The Burke Group's website:

" "Direct communications with employees during union activity must be conducted in strict accordance with the definitions and guidelines provided within the Landrum-Griffin Act known as the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1959. It requires detailed reporting of all monies paid for third party activities be provided via Form LM10 which is later posted for public record."[41] " [42]

Here, Rcodella quotes text from the TBG website that can only be described as self-serving propaganda:

"A Burke Group press release noted, "the TUC (EU union organizing body) along with John Logan, crafted a report that "brands" organizations which hire consultants or legal advisers during union activity as so called "union busters" or "anti-union". Unions invoke these terms as a scare tactic to intimidate those who may desire to invite meetings with management to learn more about unions." They also said, "Logan's report was biased and misleading based on subjective partisan research for which no request has ever been made to TBG nor its clients to review the veracity of the statements/conclusions contained therein before going to print." " [43]

Rcodella links to Labor Information Services (LIS) as a source. Although there's nothing wrong with this when it supports the article, overuse fits the pattern for possible conflict of interest (which was one concern with Oppo212 and Jbowersox):

[44]

Here again, a link by Rcodella to LIS, this time to support info that was already in the article:

[45]

Here's another example link to LIS from RCodella:

[46]

Here's an example of a link to the TBG (eu) website from RCodella:

[47]

Jbowersox likewise adds links to the LIS website and the TBG website. Here's an example link to TBG and to LIS from Jbowersox, both in the same edit:

[48]

Rcodella is hypersensitive about criticism of The Burke Group. He/she inserts "they allege" into a sourced critical statement, while adding critical claims from the TBG website about that source as fact:

...a joint campaign to thwart employer efforts on both sides of the Atlantic which they allege "demonise trade unions and scare employees from joining up."

"The TUC commissioned a highly partisan report. Logan's report is unreliable and misleading because it is based on subjective and biased research." [49]

When Oppo212 and other sock puppets could not get The Burke Group article deleted, they took to criticizing any authority mentioned in the article, or deleting their info. Jbowersox followed suit. (And so did Rcodella.) Here is Jbowersox deleting a reference to Logan:

[50]

Here, Jbowersox deleted another reference to Logan:

This may include arguing that a union will decrease pay, that workers could end up on strikes all the time, and that unions would harass them at their homes.<ref>Logan, ''U.S. Anti-Union Consultants: A Threat to the Rights of British Workers'' (2008) pp.6</ref> [51]

Three months later, Jbowersox was edit-warring, deleting one of the Logan references again:

[52]

Rcodella edits a perfectly normal sentence,

The campaign was designed to shed light on the tactics of professional companies which oppose trade union organising.

...to make the union side sound evil:

The campaign was designed to demonise companies which employ consultancies during recognition campaigns and ballot elections. [53]

In the same edit session, Rcodella again inserts allegedly to shield the company from criticism:

[54]

A routine practice of Jbowersox was changing normal word usage to corporate phraseology. (Example upon request.) Here, we see a good example of the same practice from Rcodella:

The Burke Group describes itself as an "international leader" in guiding companies in preventing workers from joining trade unions.

was changed to:

The Burke Group describes itself as an "international leader" in guiding management during union recognition campaigns. [55]

Rather than finding a source for this sentence, Rcodella deleted it:

LIS provides consultants to dissuade workers from joining trade unions.^{[citation needed]} [56]

Curiously, the best source for this information is the LIS website itself:

[57] Why, then, delete what is obvious from the website? Perhaps because (my interpretation) the LIS site uses weasel words for the same message that don't sound so bad. (Again, LIS is a part of The Burke Group.)

Jbowersox adds a link to a video that makes unions look bad:

[58]

The Union busting Article

Here, Rcodella changed an edit to make a claim that falsely misrepresented the source that Rcodella added:

The term "union buster" may also apply to employers who undertake union prevention on their own initiative to accomplish the same goals as professional labour consultancies.

...was changed to:

Trade unions may also refer to employers as union busters when they undertake supervisory training called positive labor relations in the belief that their employees may look for other jobs or seek outside representation if they believe they are not being treated fairly. (emphasis added)

This link was given as the source:

[59]

The link doesn't even mention the term "union buster". [60]

Here, Rcodella blanked an entire section with the specious claim that it had nothing to do with union busting, but belongs instead in an article about strikes. The simple truth is, strikes often present opportunities for union busting.

[61]

Jbowersox deleted entire sections as well:

[62]

Jbowersox deleted references to Martin J. Levitt:

[63]

Another example of Jbowersox deleting Levitt:

[64]

An example of Jbowersox deleting Logan (once again):

[65]

Here is Jbowersox deleting a reference (one of three) to Smith:

[66]

And Jbowersox deleting another Levitt passage:

[67]

Rcodella has also deleted sections with references to Martin J. Levitt. Consider, however, that from Oppo212 to Jbowersox (and now, i contend, to Rcodella), nearly all agressive deletions and changes have repeatedly been overturned. We have a slight moderation of the most aggressive editing tactics, and in this case the deleted section was simply moved to a different article that apparently isn't so much of interest to Rcodella (who made only that one transfer edit there):

[68]

However, Rcodella isn't reformed. In the next edit, more references to Martin J. Levitt are deleted, in this example not through outright deletion, but rather, through "blending" that managed to remove much of the existing content.

Among the content removed is this description of union busters by Levitt, who had once been a union buster:

In a union organizing campaign, image is crucial. Both the union and the union buster may try to create a positive impression of their own actions, and an unfavorable impression of the adversary. Such efforts extend to the portrayal of tactics employed, and of required steps during the organizing campaign. For example, when federal law could be useful — even if such rulings were viewed unfavorably by the work force — union buster Martin Jay Levitt used the law and presented the results as inevitable. Meanwhile, inconvenient federal requirements were attributed to the union, rather than the government. [69]

Editorial comment from me (richard myers): When Levitt wrote the (paraphrased) comment that "the union buster may try to create a positive impression of their own actions, and an unfavorable impression of the adversary", that surely is a description of some of the edits i'm describing here.

For example, Rcodella added some editorial comment of his own -- in the article, here:

In 1980, union buster Martin Jay Levitt conducted a counter-organizing drive at a nursing home in Sebring, Ohio. He assigned confederates to scratch up cars, then blamed it on the union. The deed occurred as part of a campaign to portray the union as a threat to nursing home residents.

Rcodella change this to:

In 1980 a union buster named Martin J. Levitt conducted a counter-organizing drive at a nursing home in Sebring, Ohio. He assigned confederates to scratch up cars, then blamed it on the union. Although Levitt described his activities in his book, similar activities have not been reported by others. Levitt committed such deeds in his day to portray the union as a threat to nursing home residents of his client. [70]

The "in his day" seems an obvious effort to distance Levitt's practices from -- who?

And here we have another large paragraph deleted by Rcodella -- once again, information by and about Martin J. Levitt:

[71]

Rcodella immediately followed that deletion by deleting three more paragraphs by and about Martin J. Levitt:

[72]

And here we have Rcodella deleting another paragraph by and about Martin J. Levitt:

[73]

At this point we might consider: why is Martin J. Levitt, who had been a union buster and later wrote a book called Confessions Of A Union Buster, verboten in an article about union busting? Because Oppo212, Jbowersox, and i contend, Rcodella are all one person, and that person runs a union busting company. Martin J. Levitt, the foremost authority on union busting to write a book on union busting, should not be allowed as an authority because he's just one person (according to an actual statement, see below). And, that was so long ago (beginning in the 1970s, and Levitt continued consulting -- but was no longer union busting -- until his death in 2004).

And, of course, many of the Logan, Smith, and other expert references have at different times been deleted as well. Levitt simply had the most references to delete, and having been on the inside, many of his quotations were the best.

But we're not done yet. Here we have another Rcodella deletion of a reference (one of two) to Martin J. Levitt:

[74]

And we're still not finished. Rcodella deletes four more paragraphs by and about Martin J. Levitt, including removing the excellent sourcing in each paragraph:

[75]

Rcodella explains the mass deletions with this edit tag:

deleted due to absence of citations for years and because it was not researched text but only autobiographical of one man's tactics

This edit summary is false. Everything in the article was carefully sourced, and from a variety of texts. The citations (roughly a hundred) have been in the article for five years, and the citations include Smith, Norwood, Gall, James, Fossum, Adams, Nash, Haskell, Sheridan, Lewis, Torres, Harris, Logan, Neumann, Rissman, Slaughter, Dubofsky, Hogg, Laidler, Horan, Swigget, Suggs, Lukas, Carlson, and Millikan. Union Busting was a very well balanced article before Oppo212 first logged in (April of 2008), and was nominated for Good Article in May of 2007. There have been so many attempts to delete passages from Levitt simply because that source is definitely one of the best sources available.

But we're still not done -- Rcodella deletes five more paragraphs sourced on Jay Levitt:

[76]

(LATE EDIT AFTER CLOSE: This was an edit by Cbislingtion, yet another sock puppet of Oppo212)

What does Rcodella consider appropriate content for a union busting article? Why, content that portrays one union's attempt to bust another union!

A recent example of union busting tactics used by one union against the other is the SEIU vs CNA conflict where each union was battling for the others members. In a press release dated March 10, 2008 Andy Stern of SEIU accused the CNA of union busting: "The California Nurses Association (CNA) has launched an anti-union campaign against nurses and other healthcare employees in Ohio, seeking to derail a three-year effort by the workers to unite in District 1199 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)." Central to the SEIU-CNA dispute were accusations by both organizations of raiding each other’s members and campaigns, and disagreements about the direction of the labor movement. The SEIU is almost singular in its mission, organize workers at all costs, and provokes criticism for its consolidation of smaller locals into mega unions and that it is autocratic and top down."

And where is this information sourced from? A virulently anti-union website, theunionnews.blogspot.com:

[77] [78]

Compare that to this edit of the same article by Jbowersox, who also wishes to change the article from an analysis of union busting to an article about bad unions:

"Conversely, non union organizations believe they offer competitive health benefits and pension plans without risk of mismanagement and fraud by unions citing reports such as one dated June 15, 2000, where federal authorities arrested 120 defendants across the country in a securities racket involving three unions and five La Cosa Nostra families." [79]

The page that Jbowersox cited does not exist.

Here's another dishonest edit by Rcodella. This was added to the article:

Derecognition of a trade union may be referred to as union busting by trade unions although it is legal and acceptable. Derecognition must be accomplished according to statutory guidelines. Workers may derecognize a union which no longer has support from members in the bargaining unit; also if a union memberhship falls below 50%. Employers may derecognize a union if they no longer have 21 or more workers. Generally an application for derecognition is accepted by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), and then the CAC can declare that a derecognition ballot be held. [80]

The only reference in the source to any sort of acceptance is conditional; i.e., the governing body may accept derecognition under certain circumstances. [81]

Here is another, more subtle but still significant misrepresentation of source. Rcodella added this to the union busting article:

Derecognition (UK) or Decertification (US) of a trade union may be referred to as union busting by trade unions although it is legal and often initiated by members of the trade union. Derecognition/Decertification must be accomplished according to statutory guidelines. Workers in the UK may derecognize a union which no longer has support from members or if union memberhship falls below 50%. Employers may derecognize a union if they no longer have 21 or more workers. Generally in the UK an application for derecognition must be made to the CAC or Central Arbitration Committee which declares that a derecognition/decertification ballot election will be held.

This is sourced from here:

[82]

The source actually says:

grounds for derecognition [may include when] the union no longer has enough support from workers in the bargaining unit ... (link) You (the employer) can - at any time - make a request to a recognised trade union to end collective bargaining arrangements on the grounds that the union no longer has the support of the bargaining unit. The union can decline the request. [83]

Nowhere does it say such circumstances are initiated by workers, often or otherwise. Not enough support from workers could mean that the union members all died.

Jbowersox likewise contributed false edits in order to shift blame to the unions. For example, here is a sourced statement:

Union busting is a term used by labor organizations and trade unions to describe the activities that may be undertaken by employers, their proxies and in certain instances states and governments.<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5604656</ref>

Jbowersox inserted blame ("usually triggered by events such as picketing", etc.) in a way that made it appear that it came from the source:

Union busting is a term used by labor organizations and trade unions to describe the activities that may be undertaken by employers, their proxies, workers and in certain instances states and governments usually triggered by events such as picketing, card check, organizing, and strike actions.<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5604656</ref> [84]

Jbowersox created entire sections to show how workers were responsible for union busting. Now, i wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such content, if it was legitimate. But content introduced by Jbowersox simply appeared to shift blame. For example:

"==Workers as union busters==

"One of the most common forms of worker union busting is checking "no" during card check. In the U.S., organizing starts sometimes with salting whereby organizers infiltrate an organization..." (excerpt) [85]

My reaction to this is, workers should have a right to decide for themselves whether to support a union. Calling card check "One of the most common forms of worker union busting" is just improper. There are at least two more, similar examples (not included here) that i consider worse than "a stretch".

Rcodella's final edit to the article is unsourced opinion challenging the article's basic concept:

The word union busting may be overused in current vernacular to define anything that does not embrace unions such as automatic recognition, union dues, derecognition and more... Conversely, workers are accused of union busting in the course of protecting their right not to join unions as well. [86]

Additional issues

Jbowersox was caught by another editor doing copy/paste from other websites. [87] I followed that editor's example, and found another example. Jbowersox responded here [88], defending the practice of copying from other websites by declaring, "If copy/paste with citations were plagiarism, then half of Wikipedia's entries would have to be deleted!"

Some comments

Oppo212 was arrogant, hostile, and completely new to Wikipedia. Oppo212 and other sock puppets, apparently from the same source, were banned rather quickly.

Jbowersox was the intermediate manifestation in this sock puppet line. Jbowersox stayed around for a long time, learned to communicate on TALK pages, and mellowed somewhat over time. When edits by Jbowersox continued to dismay the three or four of us who were simultaneously editing these articles, and others began to ask questions about conflict of interest, Jbowersox eventually pulled back from editing, and simply suggested edits on the Talk page. After an investigation, Jbowersox was likewise banned.

Rcodella appeared after Jbowersox was banned.

In each case, the sequence of articles edited was the same -- The Burke Group, then Union Busting.

Rcodella hasn't engaged with other editors about these articles, not even once. That seems in keeping with a strategy of avoiding the hard questions, but that's just a guess.

Rcodella has edited the new article Martin J. Levitt. However, Rcodella DID NOT transfer the deleted Levitt passages to that article. Rather, Rcodella's main impact was to hack at that article as well. Rcodella deleted this properly referenced passage:

"Levitt has alleged that some companies were so eager to keep out unions that he was paid many times over what it would have cost to improve wages or working conditions. 'They were obsessed,' he said." [89]

Understandable how that passage might offend a union buster editing union-related articles on Wikipedia.

My analysis is now complete.

respectfully submitted, richard myers Richard Myers (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]