Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DocOfSoc/Archive

02 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All these account have been attempting to add links to http://www.mountsinai.org Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not now or have ever had a sockpuppet. This is Bogus!  — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  21:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' As I was not informed as required of the malarky before today, here is my response: I added the Mount Sinai link to patient info page on Ovarian Cancer so more women have the pertinent info and don't DIE like my sister did in February. Doc James and the other MD's have decided only "Journal" material may be added regardless of Wiki policy. He is apparently not happy with me as I was not happy when he casually stated that  "Yes ovarian ca is a horrible disease and have seen many dye (sic) way before their time from it". SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ovarian_cancer. "Moved from my talk page." This is a silent disease and more info needs to be dispersed and MD's need to LISTEN to women. My sis was ignored by her doctor for a YEAR! I don't trust a doctor that can even spell DIE for heaven's sake! This young doc didn't even follow the policy that I should be informed of the ludicrous accusation and persisted in accusing me. I have no connection with NYdoc85 whatsoever (I live in LA BTW) and any accusations that it was my sockpuppet need to be removed. Any number of admins can vouch for me. I am Sick that as a PhD I didn't know the symptoms of this horrendous quiet killer when my sister complained to me. I have choice words for Doc James that are not printable.  — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  23:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a Bad faith accusation.  — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  00:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know what evidence there is to say that Doc2 is using a sock. I've edited with this user for quite some time and I don't think it's in her to use a sockpuppet especially since she has been under attack by a serial sockpuppet since Doc2 arrived at Wikipedia.  If anything, I would think that if it is at all possible to check please check and see if SRQ (I think I have the correct user name) is involved in any of this.  To me it would make more sense for this SQR to be following Doc2 to set her up.  Something is definitely wrong with the conclusions here.  I don't believe that Doc 2 would use a sock like this.  She can be hot headed and stubborn at times but she has always just held her ground.  I'm sorry, please supply some proof to show that Doc2 is using a sock.  We don't use guesses on something like this and again, I'm sorry but I find this real hard to believe. (added) The conclusion that NYDoc85 is Doc2 with only 1 edit on behavioral grounds?  What behavior?  Please tell me it's more than this 1 edit driving your conclusions, if not, please correct this as there is nothing to show that this editor is connected to her in anyway.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Crohnie. DocOfSoc has not been blocked. Yes I agree it is possible that this user has just become associated with another user who is using socks and that they themselves are not. Personal attacks however isn't going to address the issue... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Doc James, I'm sorry if I said something rude. I just reread what I wrote and I didn't see anything but anyways, I just came back here for this only as I've been DocOfSoc's unofficial mentor.  I know she wouldn't sock or be a meat puppet. She takes pride in her work here.  She may have gotten over emotional but her sister died early this year and she is still trying to cope.  I hope that helps explain some.  Hope you are well Doc James.  I will be returning to my break from here.  I am on break from here because of things like this, just thought everyone should know.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Crohnie you have only ever been polite and I have always admired your work. The civility issues I was refering too was regarding DocOfSoc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I know everything is now fine and everyone is to be happy. I would like one question answered though, DocOfSoc was accused of being another editor who only had made one edit.  The reason given was behavioral.  Now how on earth can someone be accused of being a sock of an account when the other account only has one edit?  You don't need to answer because I'm going back on my break.  This make me really sad to see this kind of thing.  This is a shame.  Sorry, and bye for now.  My email is still active. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Hmm... the behavior is strange, certainly, but some of these accounts have been around awhile. I'd say at least a few of them are meatpuppets, but I'll endorse to clarify what's going on here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Mlvwik and User:MDfellow are ✅ as the same user as each other. All remaining named accounts have similarities but we can't draw any solid conclusions among them. No comment on the IP. Frank  &#124;  talk  18:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the findings I've blocked and tagged MDfellow as a sock of Mlvwik. Also, I've blocked and tagged NYdoc85 on behavioral grounds as a sock of DocOfSoc. Beyond taht I'm not confident enough in the evidence, so we can leave it there. As a side note, I'll point out that the autoblock has kicked in for the IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And what about the account of DocOfSoc and Mlvwik? -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've warned both of those accounts. This is a first time offense for both and only one of the two was actually confirmed, so I think blocking would be a little premature. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem Doc James? There is no evidence. I have no sockpuppet. Is this a Bad faith edit because I challenged you? See above. — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is half a dozen accounts repeatedly adding the same external link to many pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the listed IP address as a big red flag here. Isn't RoadRunner the method by which "SRQ" obtains their access on revolving IP addresses? CU rarely explicitly links IPs to user names for privacy reasons, so we're not likely to get any further details. However I could easily imagine a set-up here, where DocOfSoc in their misguided zeal follows along with a crafty opponent of theirs. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. Franamax (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Franamax, RoadRunner is one of the top-5 ISPs in the US, and services literally millions of people throughout the continental US. Most of the ones who've edited here have been excellent users; a few of them have turned out to be real headaches. I can tell you honestly that half of the problem editors in Canada use the same ISP as I do, so I hope none of the checkusers is considering that a criterion! :-) Risker (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because there are several people that believe it is an important link and you revert it because you wrongly claim it has to be in a journal. That is not policy. To accuse me of being a sockpuppet because I try to insert a valuable link to ONE site is ludicrous. YOu said yourself that it was a good faith edit when you reverted it again! Women die from lack of information from Docs who do not care. — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  03:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As a result of a request on my talk page I am reviewing this case. Risker (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, as noted on my talk page, I believe everyone involved in commenting either there or on this page has done so in good faith and with the best interests of the project at heart. However, sometimes these "best interests" conflict, and we as a community need to pick out which factors we'll consider most important, bearing in mind the five pillars and the overall goals of our project, which is to create and then continuously improve a general purpose encyclopedia covering the gamut of available information. Having reviewed the content added by the editors identified in this SPI, and the related technical evidence, I believe that the edits are likely to have been made by several individuals working from a well-respected medical facility in eastern United States. As most of the edits are on a single organizational IP address, there are significant technical limitations that make it difficult to accurately determine if they are the same user or multiple users. The exception to this is DocOfSoc, who edits from a completely different location, and who has identified a different reason for editing one of the articles in question. The information being added is largely external links to patient-oriented educational material developed by experts and intended to be easily accessible to a lay reader. There are no malicious or obviously inappropriate edits. The red flag was raised when several accounts added the same link to the same article; as such, an investigation was warranted. Separate to this event, there has been a laudable and concerted effort by WikiProject Medicine to encourage medical experts to participate in editing Wikipedia; Jmh649 has been particularly active in this, taking part in interviews and lectures, and under his leadership Wikimedia Canada has developed a scholarship program targeted at medical students who contribute to our project. It appears what has happened here is that a group from a respected medical school (possibly including both students and professors) has decided to make contributions to our project but, due to lack of experience and knowledge of some of our more arcane rules, unintentionally tripped up when several of the individuals inserted the same link. It was not clear from the messages left in relation to the reverts what exactly was wrong with the link being added; I think a pretty good argument could be made that the links *did* in fact add something to the articles that wasn't there before, and the appropriate place to discuss this would be the talk page of the article(s) involved. Engaging new editors to the project, particularly those who may have specific expertise, is critical to our ongoing success as a project.  I recommend that all of the accounts mentioned here be unblocked and efforts be made to re-engage them in participating in Wikipedia in a positive way; perhaps some of the experienced editors involved in this discussion might be able to start this process. This is particularly in light of the fact that none of the accounts involved made any malicious or harmful edits, and instead appear to have made typical "new user" edits.  The SPI request was legitimate, and the conclusions of the original checkuser Frank were also correct in that there was no technical variation between the two accounts he identified. Risker (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure will give them another chance. Have unblocked the accounts.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Risker, for straightening this out. We're done here. Courcelles 02:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)