Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renwalsh/Archive

21 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

It is my belief that an editor or editors have been colluding over the years to turn the article Highlands Latin School into an advertisement for the school. I recently discovered this article in an advertisement-like state. After fixing the article up, a number of IPs, specifically 74.128.227.30 and 107.77.68.55 successively rolled back my edits, first without explanation, then stating I was pushing a radical POV [evidence: 1 2]. Immediately after I pointed out how odd it was that an anon would do this, a new account appeared, user:Renwalsh. Renwalsh continues this behavior, but under a username and with some attempts at engagement (see Talk:Highlands_Latin_School). Looking further up on the talk page, I saw that there had been a very similar controversy previously. Specifically, a number of anonymous users would come along whenever edits were made to the page adding information about the school's relationship with a publishing company (specifically that it is a for-profit subsidiary). I found that in 2010, a number of IPs repeatedly removed this information regarding the publishing company. These IPs were 66.93.231.226, 74.138.202.216, 174.141.82.130, and 74.138.202.216. [Evidence: 3, 4, 5, 6]. Eventually these issues were resolved on the talk page, and it was decided the information would be kept.

There was something of a lull until things started up again in 2014. 64.132.173.218 suddenly removed references to the corporate relationship between the school and the publishing company that had been decided years ago on the talk page. [evidence: 7], and proceeded to add advertising like material, such as a list of colleges the graduating class was accepted to: 8. This is the exact same pattern Renwalsh is repeating: I added this information back in, and Renwalsh vehemently opposes it.

If a link between Renwalsh and the 2010 IPs could be found, then it would be obvious that Renwalsh is specifically trying to cover up facts about the school. However, what would also matter is establishing a link between 64.132.173.218 and Renwalsh. Renwalsh has removed additions of 64.132.173.218, saying things like "removed brochure like statement". If they are the same person, it is probably the case that Renwalsh is now using the advertisement like edits of 64.132.173.218 in an attempt to legitimize his/her credibility and insinuate more advertising material into the article. Thanks for hearing me.'' Josephine54 (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I am using an alternative account, as for personal reasons it is highly important that I maintain my anonymity in this case. I was unaware that I should not participate in internal discussions like this using an undisclosed alt, and I apologize for that. Is there a way I can maintain my anonymity while still participating in this discussion? Thanks. --Josephine54 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ideally, you could have contacted the functionaries via email, but since we're here, you may email your main account name to me. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. 74.128.227.30 continues to revert the article and remove the information. Even if this user/Renwalsh is not sockpuppeting, something needs to be done about this. --Josephine54 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the third time 74.128.227.30/Renwalsh has reverted the page in the last day. Can you take action on this? --Josephine54 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - we will not publicly link an account to an IP address, so.
 * As for the rest, the first four IP addresses in the list are for CU or blocking purposes. Also, please note that several of the IP addresses belong to the same ISP in the same city.
 * I see the notice on your user page, and I assume that you have a good reason for using an alternate account, but please see this section of the sock policy, and this section of the same page where it says, Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, i.e. you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia: pages with an alternate account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , and  are probably the same (see:  and ). All other IPs are stale, so I did not consider them. Those two IPs that are not stale made just three edits in total, all identical to the edits made by . Renwalsh is a single purpose account only interested in making "Highlands Latin School" an advertisement. Advertisement + socking, maybe a block is needed, but I'll leave that to the admins to decide.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  13:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the IPs are much too stale to consider taking any action. The user stated they recently created an account and I don't have reason to suspect this isn't the case. There's always the possibility of a COI, but that can be handled outside of this SPI case. Mike V • Talk 18:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)