Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oliver Wendell 2009/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Oliver Wendell 2009 was blocked on May 14 for repeated editing of US highway route logs in ways that contradicted standards (see WP:RJL), and more importantly for failing to respond to numerous requests to discuss their edits. Oliver Wendell 2009 was changing the destinations of intersecting highways in the route logs to be for cities and towns that were not shown on the actual highway signage. They were still towns that the highways went to, so it may not seem like a horrible crime, but the editor was prolific, and the changes added up quickly, so that the highway articles were out of step with the standards for highways in the rest of the country (and internationally as well). As stated above, the more pressing problem was that Oliver Wendell 2009 was not replying to requests for discussion on their talk page. They were invited to a discussion on WT:USRD, but again there was no response, leading to their block on May 14. Before that date it was already evident that numerous edits to the route logs were also being made by IP addresses, in exactly the same style (though not always for the same destinations; those would change slightly from edit to edit). Since the block, the IP addresses have continued to revert the highway edits to their preferred, non-compliant versions. Here are some examples for Massachusetts Route 10:, , ,. This has gone on for I would say dozens of highway articles. I don't think I can list all of the IP addresses used; I'll just do one other highway at this point, U.S. Route 20 in Massachusetts:, , and. Ken Gallager (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2020 (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
 
 * , Checkuser will not confirm IPs to a named user. Cabayi (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see that there's anything to do here other than close. Semi-protection might help, but it sounds like it would be a pretty long list of articles that need protection, so may not be practical.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , maybe try asking for an edit filter at Edit filter/Requested. But yeah, range blocking and semi protection aren't really viable options. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Edit_filter/Requested -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Might also be worth extending Oliver Wendell 2009's block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oh, interesting. I didn't even think to look at the block details, just saw that they were blocked and moved on.  Were you thinking indef, or just something longer than the existing 1 month? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think indef is necessary, we're not there yet. This is from WP:BE An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. As they've continued the conduct which got them blocked (and hence is further blockable behaviour) the policy allows for the block to be extended. However, having looked at the timing of their IP socking afterwards, it seems like it was just their knee-jerk reaction. A warning that if it happens again they'll get a much longer block is all that's required here in my opinion. What are your thoughts on it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , How about Uw-login, with some additional warning text? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yep sounds good. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * uw-login issued, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)