Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations‎ | UrbanNerd

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 3 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


UrbanNerd

UrbanNerd (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
17 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User:UrbanNerd was banned from editing on 9 July. Since then this anon ip 174.93.11.155 has been engaged in edit warring at Big Five (banks) while continuing the same arguments on the talk page. The IP editor has basically continued to revert the page to a version set up by UrbanNerd, which removes sourced information from the article while retaining his own unsourced info. Compare the anon ip's edits to that of UrbanNerd shows remarkable overlap and style of editwarring given the IP's brief history. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Adding that I semi-protected the article for two weeks as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

evidence see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd Moxy (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor could careless the community has chosen not to deal with there attitude anymore - does not even try to hide the fact they are evading a block.Moxy (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Thank you. This is my first time doing this ....simply overwhelmed by the instructions and this is the path I saw as possible. But will read more on procedure since this seems to be the wrong place.Moxy (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll move it for you...I just needed to make sure that I wasn't missing something.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Background info: UrbanNerd was indefinitely blocked on July 5 per this ANI discussion. In that ANI discussion, it was suggested that UrbanNerd is actually a reincarnation of User:PhilthyBear (SPI from 2010), an allegation that has been made by another editor at my talk page. I expect that the technical data from three years ago is lost to the ether, so any comparison of the two is reduced to behavioural evidence. I noted on my talk page that locational interests of UrbanNerd in their infoboxes strongly matched that of User:NationalCapital, a known PhilthyBear sock. There is a strong correlation between PhilthyBear, UrbanNerd and two known socks' editing interests, and the fact that one springs up right after the previous is blocked is telling: [1]. UrbanNerd's combative attitude and tendency to resort to insults was also evidenced by another PhilthyBear sock, Po' buster e.g.: [2], [3]. Based on WP:DUCK, I think it is fairly clear that UrbanNerd and PhilthyBear are the same person.

Since UrbanNerd has been blocked, several IPs have popped up on pages that he frequently edited. (Also note that PhilthyBear had a block extended for IP socking.) The IPs listed above are suspects since the previous two SPIs. I have already blocked two (one - User:174.93.10.174 - about to expire since I set it for only a week after the IP began stalking and reverting User:Moxy's edits, and the latest, User:64.231.224.65). However, I would appreciate it if a checkuser could confirm these latest IPs are UrbanNerd socks, and if possible, validate our suspicions that the UrbanNerd account itself was a block-evading sock. Also, if these IPs are confirmed, I am wondering what we would need to consider range blocks. Unfortunately, UrbanNerd is obviously able to change IPs and at least one of those IPs comes back as a being on a /14 subnet, so I know that it will be impossible to range block all of his available addresses. But I wonder if it is desirable to block some of the smaller subnets to try and frustrate his ability to come back a day after the last sock gets tagged. Resolute 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I have now just blocked the latest IP, 73.54.104.202 as it picked up right where the last IP left off, including similar personal attacks. Resolute 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have also blocked 174.88.202.153, just added to this report by Hwy43. Resolute 13:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I've since reviewed and compared the contribution histories of UrbanNerd and the conglomerate of PhilthyBear, Po' Buster and NationalCapital and have found that UrbanNerd and the conglomerate share the following editing/article interests:
Behavioural similarities between UrbanNerd and the conglomerate include anti-French usage edits and anti-monarchy edits in addition to edit warring and incivility/personal attacks. Further to the observation summarized on Resolute's talk page, UrbanNerd went down in a blaze of glory by attacking other editors on his user page just prior to or after his block (admins can see this by viewing his deleted user page). PhilthyBear attacked other editors similarly prior to or after his block on his user talk page. Hwy43 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
But there was no range block ... 174.88.202.153 was editing yesterday. Is the purpose of this to help stop all his IP'S. Its clear the actions taken here has done nothing to stop him - or even slow him down. -- Moxy (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, there may well be too many ranges to block without causing significant collateral damage. Unfortunately, there are situations where the best you can do is play whack-a-mole until they go away. Also, if more socks creep up, a new SPI can be opened to continue to document the socks. Resolute 16:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With that many IPs, rangeblocking is utterly out of the question. The number of unrelated users hit will be astronomical. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
28 September 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This is a requested SPI for IPs 99.224.114.253 (IP99), 96.52.247.197 (IP96) and 50.98.156.21 (IP50) being socks of banned UrbanNerd (UN).

Evidence that IP96 and IP99 are socks of each other

I began suspecting further IP-sockhopping by UN when I saw edits at Ottawa between September 15 and 21. The article is about the City of Ottawa. IP96 made an edit that injected the population rank of Ottawa's census metro area in the very first sentence of the article, replacing the fact that the city was the fourth largest city in Canada. IP96 then made a similar edit, while IP50 deleted an infobox parameter the following day (which is contrary to WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes).

Though not inappropriate to include associated metro area population rank in the lead of a city article, it is inappropriate to replace a more relevant fact about the city in the opening sentence with a fact about the city's metro area, especially when the metro area hasn't even been introduced yet. I therefore re-worded the lead to consolidate all metro-related information at the end of the first paragraph. I also re-populated the infobox parameter with the proper municipal status (single-tier municipality) of Ottawa with its sub-status (city). IP99 then reverted portions of both edits today citing It was better before. This revert furthered my suspicion and I decided to investigate further.

Evidence that IP99 is UN

The very first edit by IP99 (the reverter) included the edit summary "This is not a bragging forum. Remove peacock terms" (with the wikilink embedded into the edit summary by the IP). The piped wikilink in the edit summary of the IP’s first edit infers the editor is an experienced editor at Wikipedia.

UN has a longstanding history of using "peacock" similarly in edit summaries: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]

IP99's first edit was at Southern Ontario. UN and his banned predecessor PhilthyBear (PB) both have the most edits at that article. (Note UN was suspected as a probable sock of PB a year ago.) IP99 has also edited at the following articles which were also previously edited by UN and/or PB:

As mentioned at the UN/PB SPI, UN has a contribution history of edits relating to demographics; hockey (particularly Battle of Ontario); major Canadian cities and metro areas; Ontario and its regions and municipalities; Ottawa; and urban planning.

Here are examples of pro-Ottawa-related and Ottawa Senators-related edits by IP9. UN has a track record of pro-Ottawa behaviour and edits related to Ottawa sports teams.

Evidence that IP50 is UN

UN is the creator of List of Major League Baseball attendance figures, List of National Football League attendance figures and List of National Hockey League attendance figures. Eight of IP50's 54 edits are to these articles.

Summary

The Ottawa-related edit activity of IP96 and IP99 are quite similar. IP99's edit history is very similar to the edit histories of UN and PB. IP50's editing interests are also similar to those of UN (e.g., major Canadian cities and major league sports attendance). All three have been active recently at the Ottawa article.

Request
  1. I respectfully request a CheckUser be undertaken for the three IPs in relation to each other, UN and past IPs confirmed and suspected as socks of UN. It would also be helpful to check if any new users have been registered from the same IPs. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I also request that the Ottawa article be semi-protected such that only autoconfirmed users (like Quebec) and/or registered accounts can edit, given the UrbanNerd's track record of IP sock hopping to be disruptive since his block. Hwy43 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • Below, IP99 uses the term "laughable". As disciplined as IP99 is being right now staying away from article edits so as to not reveal any further evidence of editing interests, habits and behaviours similar to that of UrbanNerd, the very term "laughable" was a frequently used term of UrbanNerd's on talk pages. [40] [41] [42] Same with the pre-UrbanNerd sock of PhilthyBear named NationalCapital, in relation to sockpuppetry no less. [43] [44] Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should also keep an eye on this IP's contributions. The IP is adding content about Calgary now being the fourth-largest CMA in Canada. IIRC, UrbanNerd went after Resolute regarding changes in CMA ranks for Calgary and Ottawa when StatCan intercensal CMA population estimates showed Calgary pull ahead of Ottawa for the first time in history. This occurred sometime before the 2011 census figures were published. This could be coincidence, or maybe it is baiting. Remains to be seen. Hwy43 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Although I am not very familiar with Wikipedia and I had to look up what a sock puppet even is, this is a ridiculous allegation. Even with my very basic understanding of wikipedia I can see that by pressing on the GeoLocate button that UrbanNerd and the numerous IPs they used were all from Kitchener, Ontario. IP96 is from Edmonton, Alberta. IP50 is from Prince George, BC, and I am from Ottawa, Ontario. Yes I edit Ottawa related articles, because I am from here. I also edit sports and municipal related articles. I think you owe me, as well as the other editors you've wildly accused an apology. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Déjà vu. The above comment is precisely how UrbanNerd in the past has reacted to sockpuppet accusations in respect of his IPs: innocent shock and claims of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia (even though recent edit summaries usually suggest an understanding of various policies and guidelines). UrbanNerd is also from Ottawa, regardless of what IP he is using at any given moment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Laughable. I can see there is entire group of you obsessed with urban Nerd. So according to you, while the Urban Nerd and all their IPs were from Kitchener, and I am from a city over 500km away, that doesn't matter and me along with the IPs from Edmonton, and BC are also him. Wow, this guy must be a super hero ! PS. I was able to understand the very basic editing styles of Wikipedia within 5 minutes of being on the site. Despite what you may think, Wikipedia is not rocket science. now please remove the rude allegations of all of our talk pages. Thank you. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that's classic UrbanNerd right there in that comment. It's almost endearing that he thinks he's fooling anyone, now or on one of the many past occasions when he resurfaced. And, by the way, UrbanNerd does live in Ottawa, as he made clear on repeated occasions over the years.Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how his multiple IPs proved otherwise. Now please waste your spare time on other endeavours besides falsely accusing IP's from across the country of being the same person. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've been though this whole routine before, UrbanNerd, and nobody believes you this time either. Go away. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, UrbanNerd is from Ottawa, as was NationalCapital[45]. Both are socks of PhilthyBear. Quite the history of sockpuppetry. Hwy43 (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty evident from the edit history alone this IP is UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear; he's been using various IPs (many listed at his old talk page) since being indef banned. As if that weren't enough, the feigned naivete (the deliberate misspellings of UrbanNerd) paired with personal insult is classic UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear in his guises as anon IPs, one previous example being at Talk:Lac-Mégantic derailment: The innocence (and misspelling of UrbanNerd) and the insults. (He was summarily blocked for abuse of multiple accounts.) This kind of "oh, it isn't really me, it's someone else" claim with elaborate explanation (along with the same woes of insult and "problem editors") goes all the way back to his first ban when editing as PhiltyBear. I don't know of a solution to his use of IPs to skirt his ban. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In one of his finer moments, UrbanNerd once called me a "troubled editor with extreme/aggressive homosexual tendencies", which always made me wonder if he somehow thought that I'd been hitting on him. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you'll forgive my engaging in the terrible practice of one-upping, and if you'll look back to July 8 and 9, 2013, at his talk page history, you'll see UrbanNerd once wrote something about me so heinous it was permanently stricken from Wikipedia. To this day I still don't know what he wrote. Perhaps he took it really personally that I wasn't hitting on him...? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you had just left a one line note on his talk page starting with the word "Hello". Understandable that he'd take such offense.Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Additional information needed - Checkuser has no No comment with respect to IP address(es). We need another account before we can run a CU here, otherwise the case will be CU declined and awaiting an admin. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: do you mean you need another suspected IP or an actual registered account? Do Checkusers not work solely on IPs? Hwy43 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They can't publicly match an IP with an account because they aren't allowed to reveal users IPs. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be an account. While we work with IPs, we normally are unable to disclose any connections to an account with it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: thanks for your reply. I have a hunch that the next account that edited at Ottawa 13 minutes after IP99 reverted me might also be a sock. Only the one edit on WP though, and three on Wikimedia to upload two Ottawa-related photos, of which one is of the Ottawa Senators' arena. Hwy43 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per that edit of he Ottawa article noted above by Hwy43, that Kanata business park image is one of two photos that UrbanNerd is fixated on removing from the article (see Talk:Ottawa#Poor quality images for one of UrbanNerd's more recent sockpuppet adventures in respect of that image and another one), so User:Ontario Images is most likely another sock of UrbanNerd. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 99.224.114.253 is an obvious sockpuppet of PhilthyBear aka UrbanNerd: Checking the edit history I have seen more than enough evidence to make it clear beyond all reasonable doubt, so I will block that IP address. Fortunately, the editor is clearly completely unconscious of the various ways he/she gives himself/herself away. unfortunately, I am out of time, and can't check the others now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still unable to CU because all UrbanNerd + previous accounts are stale. All things that can/should be blocked are blocked. Closing. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The usual anti-Quebec, anti-French language and anti-Toronto rhetoric that UrbanNerd is known for. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] Usage of terms like "nonsense" are similar to those of a UrbanNerd if I recall correctly. Assuming bad faith with accusations about "fragile ego" motivation are par for his course re: Toronto (see final diff and diff from UrbanNerd of same ilk). Hwy43 (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Also perhaps 70.55.49.134 who has edited the same articles over the same period of time, with the exact same reverts and insults instead of explanations, ie the 2017 Women's March article, and the Montreal article ("This sounds like a 7th grader wrote it", "Torontonians are insecure", etc). trackratte (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Significant quacking here. I'll formally add this IP to the SPI as well. Hwy43 (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

information Administrator note It seems likely. I'll block both IP addresses, but they're becoming a bit stale. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

UrbanNerd has an indefinite community ban. Two IP socks were recently banned here, but surprising only for a very short period. I just noticed his usual anti-Toronto rhetorical again at Talk:Toronto, specifically [53] [54] [55] (note the use of terms like "fluff" and "peacock" that were frequently used by UrbanNerd). Also note the incivil sarcasm here. Looking at the IP's contributions, we see edits to Ottawa and light rail articles, which are part of UrbanNerd's old stomping grounds, plus anti-Quebec edits a week ago, battling trackratte just as the two other IPs (only temporarily blocked) did with trackratte two weeks ago. Requesting an indefinite ban on this IP and the two from two weeks ago. Also, I want to know if there is a more expedited way to block this sockmaster's IPs in future. Is it inappropriate to ping an admin involved in this case or the archived cases to request immediate blocks? Hwy43 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to me, I've been mostly retired, so not watching at all. I'll definitely leave any administrative action up to an active CU in this case. Resolute 14:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am more concerned with addition of FAKE dates like this edit ...not sure if the IP is guessing or trying to make wrong additions on purpose. Either way not someone we need here.--Moxy (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@Hwy43: the reason why I blocked those IP addresses for such a short time is because they had gone stale – they were not being actively used at the time I looked at the SPI case. Blocking an IP address accomplishes nothing if there's no disruption. See Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses and Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people for a longer explanation of this. The latest IP has been active in the past few days, so I'll block it for a week. Let me know if it becomes active again after the block expires, and I'll block it longer next time. The older two IP addresses haven't been active since my last block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate. The sockmaster obviously must have the means to change his IP regularly, and seems to stop editing at the suspected IP once the SPI is opened despite not being notified directly. Perhaps he is monitoring those that are tracking him at his old talk page. Hwy43 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Admittedly this might be less obvious than the previous SPIs, but here we go...

Background

UrbanNerd (UN) was blocked in 2013 after a long history of incivility and seven prior blocks. Since then, there have been six SPI investigations for IP sockhopping in 2013/14 and starting again in 2017. The September 2013 SPI included a retroactive investigation to blocked PhilthyBear (PB) and two of its previously confirmed socks, NationalCapital (NC) and Po' buster.

Saboteurest

To cut to the chase, 174.89.106.162 was one of the IPs subject to the last two SPIs that was blocked as a sock of UN. The IP started a discussion at Talk:List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada#City images error, which was consistent to UN's longstanding history of anti-Toronto editing sentiment over the years. Note I saw through the bad faith complaint in reply to IP's comments, explained the rational reason for why the Toronto image size was inconsistent, and initiated the second-last SPI as a result. Saboteurest created an account four months later. Within the first three weeks, Saboteurest coincidentally arrived at List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada to fix the image size inconsistency. Note the number of contributions to the article and its talk page by UN and PB.

As expressed in previous SPIs, UN had a longstanding history of anti-Toronto edits and pro-Ottawa edits. This time around we see evidence by Saboteurest of anti-Toronto edits including [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] Sixteen of Saboteurest's first 50 edits were to Talk:Toronto, Toronto and Ottawa. There are also five edits to Ontario, of which UN remains the editor with the third-most contributions even four years after being blocked. Further there are three edits to Brampton, of which UN remains the editor with the eleventh-most contributions. So with this evidence, we are already seeing that 50% of Saboteurest's first 50 edits were at articles and talk pages frequented by UN/PB.

I am not going to go through the same level of detail for edit #51 onward, but provide some observations based on top edited pages. Both UN and Saboteurest both having editing interests in transit (particularly light rail), Little Italy, skyscrapers (tallest buildings), Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada, Golden Horseshoe, lists of sports franchises by city/attendance figures, Great Lakes Megalopolis, in addition to the four articles mentioned in the previous paragraph – Toronto, Ottawa, Ontario, Brampton – and topics relating to these.

Also note the use of "fragile ego" in the opening lines of the recent ANI here and by UN's sock here.

It is interesting to see right now that Saboteurest is going for Canterbury Tail's blood right now through ANI, arbitration request, etc. Canterbury Tail recently blocked Saboteurest for a week, and also levied UN's indefinite block back in 2013.

And also the recent claim of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, which has been done by UN and previous socks before. Look at the IP's response to the SPI from September 2013 in the archived SPIs, and Skeezix1000's reply.

IP 175.95.7.183

While we are at it, here is the evidence associated with IP174.95.7.183 in relation to Saboteurest and UN.

IP174.95.7.183 first appeared on Talk:Canada

IP then reappeared at Golden Horseshoe in July to make two regional definition related edits [61] [62], eventually followed by Saboteurest making a similar regional definition related edit in January [63], and then a dozen other edits in February [64].

Closure

I have grown extremely tiresome of this WP:NOTHERE editor with longstanding incivility and battleground mentality continually returning despite community ban, and seemingly no one else notices or does nothing about it. This makes my fourth straight SPI report of the problem user.

Seeking CheckUser and any other action or tool available to see if there are more registered sock accounts editing from Saboteurest's IP addresses. Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector is it possible to look at 64.229.247.225 and 64.229.245.159 as well? Sure quacks similarly. I recognize the IPs haven't edited since early 2016 and mid-2017 respectively and not much can be done. Hwy43 (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Since the accounts in the archive are stale, information from the checkuser logs indicate that it is  Possible. I did not run a check but will leave the request up in case another checkuser wants to have a look. I checked the cu wiki but there isn't anything on this master. no No comment with respect to IP address(es)  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to run a check after all but do not see any other accounts.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Relisted - Berean Hunter I'm not sure if you looked, but this case is misfiled and should have been merged with the actual master, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PhilthyBear, years ago. Does that affect your check? Please set the case status to "clerk" when you're done, the cases need to be merged. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, I'm aware but I didn't run checks on that case. See my edit from yesterday. I took the IPs from the CU log for all checks in that case and this one (before this was filed) and mapped them out. In terms of technical data, those accounts seem to have edited approximately 450 km apart. I still have the log results in a small text file if any CU wants me to email it. Locations aren't in the file, just the IPs. Ivanvector, we may want to have another CU look this over to consider the merge and also they may want to run current checks in that case.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm reading into your comment that the cases should not be merged. If another CU does take a look and finds something we can reopen that issue later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: suffice it to say I have found enough convincing behavioural similarities along with the technical result that this account is  Blocked and tagged. I would also call the IP a sock, but it is eight months stale. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hwy43: yes, I'd say those IPs were the same user as well, but because of the nature of dynamic IP addressing there's really nothing we can do about an IP that hasn't edited in 8 months. It's very likely that the IP has been assigned to a different individual since then, and we would be blocking the wrong person. But it doesn't hurt to point them out, we could possibly use this sort of evidence to construct a block on a range of IPs in the future. Taking a quick look at the range it doesn't seem like the same person is currently active. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07 February 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Ongoing ANI report with multiple editors believing they are a sock based on incivility and edit style. Hidden edit on ANI that was directed at the sock exposer (Diff not available as it was hidden). Elijahandskip (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

@Tamzin: I can add some evidence tonight. I may have more to add in reply to the above comments as well at that time. Also, yes, this needs to be moved so that it is filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd. Elijahandskip, thank you for taking the initiative. You'll learn the SPI ropes in short order. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This SPI should have been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd as UrbanNerd is the sockmaster. IP76 is the suspected sock based on publicly viewable evidence. IP2605 is assumed to be a sock based on a redacted insult directed at me and Canterbury Tail in response to me accusing IP76 of being a sock of UrbanNerd at an ANI case. Hwy43 (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: thank you for initiating this. Hopefully the above gives you a better sense on how to do so in future. I haven't read through the details of your frustrating interactions with this sock, but you aren't alone. When I find how UN battlegrounded and trolled me on one thing in particular in my earlier days, I will be sure to share. Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence linking IP76 to UrbanNerd:

  • UrbanNerd (UN) was indefinitely blocked by Canterbury Tail in July 2013.
  • UN has been IP-sockhopping ever since, sometimes using dynamically changing IP addresses IIRC (that hide true geographic whereabouts IIRC).
  • A selection of UrbanNerd's stomping grounds that overlap with IP76's interests over the past five months are as follows:

Hwy43 (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence linking IP2605 to UrbanNerd:

  • See redacted single edit here.
  • See UN's final four edits here that were redacted.
  • Are there any similarities? I never saw IP2605's edit before it was redacted, but Liz has indicated it was an insult directed at me and Canterbury Tail. I recall seeing one or more of the final edits by UN before they were redacted. If one of those four weren't directed at me, then there is another redacted edit out their from UN or their socks that was directed at me in response to involvement in an ANI or SPI involving the sockmaster.

Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I am done for tonight. Feel free to investigate what I provided thus far. Maybe it is enough. I'd prefer not putting more into this than I need to. I have already lost days of my life on past SPI evidence efforts involving this sockmaster (and having been asked to help when I was hoping an SPI with evidence would be pulled by those being disrupted by UN, as UN has learned to generally avoid making edits with the usual flagrant "tells" on my watchlist and therefore fly under my radar). Note it is recognized that IP's associated with UN's actual account are over 9 years stale, so this is a behavioural-based investigation. Hwy43 (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: thank you. I will cease collection of evidence. I am impressed at how you found the smoking gun. I presume there is a tool you have access to that helps find needles as such among the haystacks? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will post up here since it's slightly off-topic. @Hwy43: I got it from this Editor Interaction Analyzer report, clicking on the "Megalopolis" link since it was the odd one out of the group and thus the most likely to have something probative. (The more related two pieces of evidence, the less added probative value. One pair of similar diffs on one Ontario article only adds so much to an existing pair of similar diffs on another Ontario article, y'know?) There's an EIA link in the "Tools" bar under every sock list. Currently it only works on non-Twinkle filings, and doesn't count sockpuppets added to the report belatedly, but both of those should be fixed if Template talk:SPI report#Proposed change to sock list and Twinkle PR #1509 go through. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Ah. In particular the "timeline" link took you here. Very helpful in future to streamline my evidence gathering efforts. Can you remind if one of the four redacted final edits by UN was an insult or threat towards me? I am testing if my memory led me astray. In meantime, goodnight! Hwy43 (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hwy43: I am not an administrator, despite occasional calumny to the contrary, but you can email any friendly admin to ask. Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles, while not per se applicable here, may be a good place to look if no one comes to mind. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

13 March 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Usual anti-Toronto sentiment: [88]; [89]; [90]. Usual pro-Ottawa sentiment: [91]; [92]. Contributions: at the usual stomping grounds of Great Lakes megalopolis, at an article related to interest in high-speed rail (see UrbanNerd's contributions at Light rail in North America), and use of "shameless" in edit summaries (UrbanNerd: [93], [94]; this IP: [95], [96]) Hwy43 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye User:Hwy43 was thinking the same thing when I saw a few of the edits.Moxy- 02:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Added another IP, based on it making the same edits as the first IP: [97][98]. TDL (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/UrbanNerd/Archive&oldid=1142566061"