Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kynatalie/Archive

11 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Multiple IP and throwaway accounts adding content to disambiguation pages and pages related to psychology and peception. The above is from photoreceptor, but smell DAB page and pavlov DAB page: have been edited in this way also. Kkmurray (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2012 (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

 * Closed. Adding content on similar topics isn't anything like enough evidence to block all these users. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that one of the IPs above belongs to the University of Toronto, and most of the rest are also in Toronto, this may be some sort of misguided school project. The remaining IP, 82.113.122.164, doesn't seem to have edited either of the three listed DAB pages. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

25 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is a report of multiple accounts used only for a few edits of articles related to psychology. This does not appear to be a misguided school project as suggested previously and does seem to fit the situation “Disruptive ‘throwaway’ account used only for a few edits.” An editor seems to be engaging in sockpuppetry in order to avoid scrutiny related to bad editing habits regarding sources, specifically: 1) adding references to DAB pages, 2) linking to paywall hidden references, and 3) direct copypaste of text from references in violation of copyright. The editor appears to be acting largely in good faith and many of the contributions appear to be valuable; however, the use of multiple accounts makes it difficult to discuss and potentially correct the problematic editing habits.

Signs of Sockpuppetry Examples of adding references to DAB page Photoreceptor (history )
 * Precocious edit history – new accounts with good knowledge of reference citation templates.
 * Repeating the same disapproved activity – adding references to DAB articles, copypaste from references, linking to paywall blocked references.
 * Editing identical articles – multiple accounts editing similar sections or references in psychology-related articles.
 * Accounts used only briefly – each account is used briefly and often sequentially.
 * Deedeerocks123
 * Violet202
 * Sisicatherine
 * Nabz phoenix
 * 70.49.46.232

Examples of adding references to DAB page Smell (history )
 * Buttburh
 * Gavinyuen
 * Wikiwikiyan
 * Psychology1994
 * Vizsual

Examples of adding paywall hidden references (typically from myaccess.library.utoronto.ca)
 * Buttburh
 * Gavinyuen
 * Violet202

Examples of cut and paste from copyrighted references
 * Wikiwikiyan

There are many more apparent single purpose accounts and similarly edited articles but the above illustrates the pattern. Kkmurray (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
The full list of users is here. It is a class of 1700 students operated by a prof who was given a hard time last year due to the problems he caused so this year is "flying under the radar". The students have been told to make two edits. Much of it is plagiarism. Discussed here and a few sections above. Another class (of higher level) is also editing however there is significant issues with plagiarism there as well. A small group of use are struggling to deal with the issue at hand. We are currently analysing the edits. This will be presented to the community shortly. We would appreciate further input and of course would love help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC) ''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - What's going on at the history of photoreceptor is very weird, to say the least. I absolutely endorse checkuser on the recent editors to try and turn that dab page into an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - Talking with another CU on this, I doubt much is going to come out of this though except us saying that they all could be related. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was looking at this late yesterday, but was left scratching my head. From a technical standpoint, all of these accounts (including the non-stale accounts in the archive) are editing from the same geographic area, but it appears that they are using a wide variety of hardware and software. Because of that, and since DQ isn't able to shed any additional light, I'm going to have to say that it is possible that they are the same person, but this case is going to have to be decided on the behavioral evidence, I'm afraid. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is 1700 students all instructed to do the same things. Thus edits all the same style from the same place. They are all just trying to get 3% of their grade and thus most of it is poorly done. They spend a couple of minutes make two edits and that is it. Struggling with how address it... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * - On hold pending Doc James further input. NativeForeigner Talk 01:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is how do we deal with a class of 1700 students who are overall editing poorly? This is similar to the India Education Program all over again but dealing with just a narrow poorly watched subject area. It will probably be a week or two before we have data for people. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this should be halted here. This is a list of some students from a class of 1700 people, and there is no indication that any of these users are the same person, or that they are intentionally violating Wikipedia rules. (They're following the instructions of their professor.) The vast majority of them will not be editing from the university or from any single common IP address/range; even if they were editing from the university, we wouldn't be hard-blocking the IP for any significant length of time due to the collateral damage. While this is definitely a problem, it is not one that is amenable to resolution by an SPI or any checkusering.  Risker (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The mass addition of plagiarized material is a problem for WP. It may not be sockpuppettry, but it might have to be dealt with in the same manner, with a range block. As well as stopping it, we need to find some way of rapidly communicating that this sort of editing is impermissible.  I don't want to   say this is the fault of the Education Program--the program will never have the means of its own to deal with an instructor who insists on not following our editing requirements, but I would expect them to be willing to offer substantial off-wiki assistance because editing like this is capable of killing the program--just as the India edits last year came close to doing so.  I can think of two different rationales for dealing with it: one is as meat-puppettry--a person (the instructor in this case) is supervising the edits of his students, is aware he is violating our rules,  and and is reasonable for us to expect him to take at least minimal responsibility for them. The other, is to regard it as a case for WP:CCI -- it may be plagiarism not copyright, but the necessary steps are similar.  Doc,do you know the grading rubic? they get the 4% is we revert their edits?   DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears to be the exact same as last year. 1% for creating an account, 1% for each edit. There was also a possibility to get 1% for editing a Wiki in another language. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was about to close this case when I saw the hold tag added to it, but decided to wait for comments. I agree that SPI is no longer the correct venue for this matter, so I am closing the case with no action taken. I also agree that the editing is very problematic, but rangeblocks are not the solution, nor or they feasible as they would cause unacceptable collateral damage. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 05:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)