Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalora6/Archive

Evidence submitted by Looie496
These are all ducks. The editor creates accounts and uses them to edit a set of medical articles, adding short statements with improperly formatted refs. The edits would not be terribly harmful if done once, but they are done over and over again in spite of being reverted and the editor being advised about why they are incorrect. They are not simply throwaway accounts -- the editor often comes back and reuses an account later for essentially the same purpose. I have indeffed all but the purported master account. I would like to get a CU in order to determine whether there are some that we have missed and whether anything can be done to stop this. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.


 * This is an assignment in where we have to make ten edits to certain words using relevant literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalora6 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Copying above comment here, where it belongs. --Hordaland (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
To be clear, the editor is not edit-warring. Almost all edits are new content. Anthony (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion started at WT:WikiProject Medicine. There is apparently no disruption, just paranoia. User:RexxS proposed that this might be a class project. Currently the users are blocked. I am not sure if that's a good idea. Disclaimer: I have not looked at the edits systematically and in detail. Example. Hans Adler 19:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I meant paranoia in the sense of a paranoid computer administrator, for example, not the medical condition. Hans Adler 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I wondered if it might be a school project, too; but I've read all (I think) of the contributions and I'm pretty confident that's not the case because of the consistency of the errors of English syntax, and if there were that many editors I'd expect one of them to respond to the edit summaries or talk page comments. Anthony (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, this makes sense. Hans Adler 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an assignment in where we have to make ten edits to certain words using relevant literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalora6 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Oconnor2 seems to be related to this group of editors. (see his edits on Self-harm)--Guerillero &#124; My Talk   21:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It says above about this case, "it is now awaiting administration and close." Close would be quite premature IMO!  Hordaland (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the above results, I'm in favour of unblocking the accounts. I'm going to try to contact the tutor/lecturer coordinating this, with a little advice about sourcing and WP:MEDRS. Anthony (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A little advice on punctuation and spelling is needed, as well. Hordaland (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how just because the user has stated it's an assignment that we just believe that. The latest edits by User:Oconnor2 are even less than constructive that the previous accounts. Somebody already mentioned here that it might have been a class assignment, Lalora6 is just confirming a suspician but provides no evidence. If it is an assignment then it's an appalingly bad one. I don't think the accounts should be unblocked until the source of the "assignment" is found. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * She mentioned that they'd been told to make 10 edits, and that's about how many they make. Some of them have done fewer, but they may be late with their assignment, or the others may be early. I've emailed Lalora6 and asked them to ask the teacher to contact me. I'm trying to get to examining their common sources, then I'll email the Dublin City University bookshop to see which course uses them, and approach the coordinator, if they don't email me first.
 * I think AGF is very appropriate here. Anthony (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think AGF is really very relevant when all of the edits have been unconstructive. As I said, if it is an assignment it is poorly planned and poorly implemented and quite frankly just an excuse to make test edits in wikipedia article mainspace, which is not acceptable. If it really is an assignment then I think we should wait until the teacher gets in contact with you and assures you any further edits will be in line with wikipedia policy before unblocking the accounts. However, I cannot personally see any benefit to allow these test edits to continue and I cannot see any benefit to the students in carrying out this "assignment". Jdrewitt (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We have another one adding 'Barker 2003', see User talk:Lumanog.n. I note that for some of these eidtors, eg User:Oconnor2 who I asked to explain this, these edits are continuing. I'm blocking User:Oconnor2 for this. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oconnor has now edited 10 articles, so he's probably fulfilled his assignment requirements now, anyway. Anthony (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Some of these editors repeatedly include (Barker, 2003) as a sort of a reference. I suspect that these edits refer to The art and science of mental health nursing: a textbook of principles and practice, Authors and Editors: Ian J. Norman, Iain Ryrie, illustrated, McGraw-Hill International, 2004, ISBN 0335212425, 9780335212422, 847 sider, as found on google books. Within that book, there are many instances of (Barker, 2003). Apparently Dr Phil Barker. --Hordaland (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Oconnor2 is still editing and they are equally unconstructive as the previous edits. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked him and am sorry I didn't do it earlier. Hordaland is probably right about Barker, but just as that sort of reference might mean a low grade in an essay, it's unacceptable here as there is no way to verify it. Oconnor2 was warned about this and didn't respond. If this has been some sort of student exercise it's been a bad example of one. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is a really bad assignment, if that's what it is. I find it very strange that all the users are editing in the same manner. Individual users tend to have individual editing styles, but that usual variation is absent in this case. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: similar clumsy English, similar erroneous citation style, ignoring/not noticing talk page comments. Still odd. I've emailed the 7 with email enabled: "Hi. Would you please ask the teacher that set your Wikipedia project to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lalora6#Suspected_sockpuppets." Should have done that on the first day. Anthony (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If this was an assignment the students would most likely would be citing a whole host of sources. However this isn't the case. All of these accounts seem to be pushing this Barker source. Also don't you need to get permission to do a class project on wikipedia? I swore I saw a notice board about that once.--Guerillero &#124; My Talk   04:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Clarka33 is another one: no space after sentence, refers to Ireland, pushing Barker (2003). Hordaland (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm continuing to block these, leaving a note asking that their teacher contact me, it's a bit odd that no one has yet. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarka33 is still editing after being warned, please could you block them as I see no indication they plan to discontinue this disruptive editing style. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. I have just spoken to the teacher who set the assignment. He is very enthusiastic about turning his students into Wikipedians, so pointed him to my little tutorial and asked him to let me know when he's confident it is safe to unleash the students again. I hope nobody minds, but I'd like to use this as an impromptu field trial for the tutorial. I've asked him to contact me on the tutorial project talk page. Anthony (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done, Anthony, how'd you get in contact? I've blocked several more this morning, each time asking that whoever is supervising this get in touch. I'm happy to unblock anyone once we know that this project is going to go ahead safely. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is good news and well done getting in contact with them. Hopefully we can get some solid reassurances that any future edits will be inline with wikipedia policy, which includes replying to talk page messages! Jdrewitt (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I rang the university school of nursing and was put straight through to the teacher. (plug) If anybody's still reading this, could you please look at the tutorial and tell me if a careful reading of it will change a Lalora6 into a Jay.vista2 | (talk) | (contribs) (the only one not blocked)? Suggestions at the project talk page would be greatly appreciated before the students see it. Anthony (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A thorough reading of the tutorial, together with the welcome message most users already have on their talk page, should fix the problem. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * has contacted me and I've briefed him on this. Sorry, I've pointed him to the tutorial talk page. Anthony, did you learn which University it was through email? Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Looie496 mentioned it at Project medicine. Anthony (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The teacher has emailed me. He has told the psych nursing undergraduates to stop editing, pointed them to the tutorial and told them to conform. He has asked if the blocks can be lifted for Monday, and we'll work together on any problems that linger. He also has a postgraduate group doing edits around cognitive/social psychology of judgment and decision-making but thinks they've been making a better go of things. Anthony (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in case you haven't, you might want to email . -- DQ  (t)  (e)  18:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what functionaries is or what I should email them about. Anthony (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Functionaries mail list is "broader than that of arbcom-l; the list is intended to allow more effective collaboration among editors involved with sensitive and privacy-related areas within the community, and the handling of related issues, primarily on English Wikipedia." and "current Arbitration Committee members, former members in good standing, advanced permission operators (CheckUser and/or Oversight), and other editors with official Wikimedia Foundation status" are all on the list. This would help in a possible block of the IP addresses needed, and any additional information on how to prevent this. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  21:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip. Anthony (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug. These three haven't been blocked yet. Would you mind blocking them? And are you OK about unblocking all of theese accounts some time before 9:00 AM Ireland time on Monday?
 * Lumanog.n
 * Concanr2
 * Ciaran14

Anthony (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not comfortable about any unblocks occuring until the teacher and the users involved engage in discussion on talk pages here on wikipedia. It's great that you are in email and telephone contact with the teacher but we need assurance that any further edits will be suitable for inclusion. For example, this edit is cited fine but has just been inserted in the middle of another paragraph discussing the relationship between suicide and self harm. So there are clearly formatting issues that need to be resolved. Admittedly it's an improvement but still someone else (i.e. me) is going have to fix it for them. I really do not think it is sensible to set students an assignment where they have to edit wikipedia. By all means suggesting that they volunter and edit in their free time is to be encouraged for sure. But to set an assignment whereby students absolutely have to make a certain number of edits is just asking for trouble, in my opinion. This project (wikipedia) is designed for volunters who edit for the fun/joy/fulfillment/sense of achievement etc of contributing to create the most concise and comprehensive encylopedia in history. Setting it as an assignment takes that impetus away and is asking for trouble. I think unblocking on monday is a bit premature if we haven't had a clear discussion, including contributions from the teacher and students on wikipedia project or talk space first on the best way to procede before allowing further edits to be made in article space. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Jdrewitt, unfortunately. It's just too optimistic to expect this school assignment to be any kind of success within a few days.  The teacher's expectations were unreasonable to start with, and we'll need some assurance that s/he now understands what is required. At the least.  --Hordaland (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns. I have emailed the teacher inviting him to comment here, and proposed that the students run their edits by me for critique, before inserting into an article. If he agrees to that, then this will no longer be a field trial for the tutorial, but it should provide me with invaluable info' for improving it. Anthony (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the three I was asked to block. I agree that Monday is probably too soon. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the teacher involved has commented on this page (see below) I have requested input at the administrators noticeboard. I hope that is ok, I don't see any consensus on how to procede with this project so thought it would be sensible to mention this SPI page here. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent move Jdrewitt, and thanks for taking the matter as seriously as I do. I'll go check out AN. Anthony (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, Anthony invited me to comment on this as my students are the ones who've been doing the edits in question. First of all, the exercise is not mandatory, but is one of several options that they have for course work (and definitely one of the more difficult options). I'm interested in encouraging students to have an interactive engagement with Wikipedia (rather than mere browsers), adding to it in a creative and constructive way. Of course, there is always the danger that their editing will be substandard and not up to par by Wikipedia standards and that's what has happened in this case. I've told them to hold off on editing until they are happy that they've familiarised themselves with the Wikipedia standards for editing and are prepared to adhere to these. I am confident that students wanting to make edits from Monday on will adhere to these standards and Anthony has kindly offered to take proposed contributions via his talk page before they are posted. I'd like to arrive at the situation where our students can edit Wikipeida as an optional way of demonstrating learning (I agree that it should never be mandatory, but always voluntary) that also contributes to Wikipedia as a valuable information resource. I agree that students who don't abide by Wikipedia standards should be blocked, but I would like to think that students who make constructive edits would be welcomed as valued members of the Wikipedia community, and also that having been introduced to not merely reading, but editing Wikipedia, they would continue to make worthwhile edits after the course has finished, both in the area of their studies and other areas of interest to them... Gerard Clinton (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Gerard Clinton
 * Hello, thank you for your comments here. In order for us to help you make sure that the project is successful it would, for a start, be useful to know which articles your students will be editing. We have some methods at our disposal which would help us to review your students edits prior to submission. However, in order to implement these it would be useful if you could please provide us with a list of articles or subjects that the students will be concentrating the efforts on. Best regards Jdrewitt (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked all in the list above. It's possible some editors may have been blocked not in that list. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys for all your help around this issue and sorry for the inconvenience this whole episode has caused! Thanks also for unblocking the accounts. I have told students that poor editing will result in being blocked, so I'm reasonably confident that they'll stick to the right way of doing it from here on out.
 * I have told students that they could try contributing any articles that have relevance to the course (which is on assessment in psychiatric nursing). So basically we're looking at all articles on mental health problems, suicide, risk assessment and nursing assessment. This has been a steep learning curve for me, so as the course draws to a close I am thinking that a more structured approach will work better next year. I think that giving student's a list of articles might be a better way of coming at it. Gerard Clinton (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Gerard Clinton
 * JDrewitt, thanks for the list of articles that you've drawn up that the students have been editing. I'll ask anyone who is planning edits outside of that list to notify me so that I can pass the info onto you. As I was saying, from here on out I think that a defined list of pages to edit makes things run more smoothly all round. Gerard Clinton (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Gerard Clinton

I think this case can be closed now. Any further discussion/action will happen on other boards such as the thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263 or (maybe later) School and university projects. --Anthony (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is nothing more to be discussed on this page, it is no longer a sockpuppet investigation and any further issues arising from the project will be discussed at AN or SUP. Can an admin please close this case. Thanks Jdrewitt (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Fairly high chance of sleepers here, I think. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * bordering on ❌. The results are a mess, with hundreds of unrelated accounts on the tens of IP ranges these accounts are editing on (quite a few are mobile ranges). Given the strange results, and the completely different useragents for almost all of the accounts, I would argue that meatpuppetry is probably what is happening here (or some type of school project). That said, some of the contributions are very similar in style in which case this could be one person who edits from lots of different IP ranges, some from their phone, other from internet cafes. It is hard to really say. Tiptoety  talk 18:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears that all of the accounts listed above have been blocked. For the instructor, please see WP:SUP regarding using Wikipedia in School and University projects.  Nakon  03:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I placed this case on hold until at least Monday to see if there's any development to this incident. No harm done by keeping it open a little bit longer. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any updates? Nakon  21:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing left to do here. T. Canens (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)