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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
evidence see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd Moxy ( talk) 13:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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. Reso lute 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's look back at a dozen of the similar BRD edit summaries UrbanNerd used throughout his contribution history: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] Hwy43 ( talk) 23:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@ 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)
Admittedly this might be less obvious than the previous SPIs, but here we go...
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.
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.
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].
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
Evidence linking IP76 to UrbanNerd:
Hwy43 ( talk) 06:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Evidence linking IP2605 to UrbanNerd:
Hwy43 ( talk) 07:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@ 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)
@ 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)
clerk
when you're done.As to 2605, I've looked at the deleted edit, and it's probably UN, yeah. Kinu has already blocked for trolling, for longer than I would have requested as a sockblock, so not going to think too hard about making a definitive determination there. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they) 07:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
evidence see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd Moxy ( talk) 13:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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. Reso lute 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's look back at a dozen of the similar BRD edit summaries UrbanNerd used throughout his contribution history: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] Hwy43 ( talk) 23:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@ 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)
Admittedly this might be less obvious than the previous SPIs, but here we go...
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.
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.
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].
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
Evidence linking IP76 to UrbanNerd:
Hwy43 ( talk) 06:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Evidence linking IP2605 to UrbanNerd:
Hwy43 ( talk) 07:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@ 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)
@ 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)
clerk
when you're done.As to 2605, I've looked at the deleted edit, and it's probably UN, yeah. Kinu has already blocked for trolling, for longer than I would have requested as a sockblock, so not going to think too hard about making a definitive determination there. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they) 07:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.