Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Sugar Bear

Sugar Bear (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
23 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by RG

this may be a duck. RG (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

For previous history of this user, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[6] More history. The thread that got him indeffed originally which lists evidence of 3rr, socking, etc.

Also, his promise not to edit war and abuse multiple accounts. Highly relevant, as his current status as an indefblocked user who has been unblocked, on that aforementioned promise, any evidence that breaks that promise might result in another indef block.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Rockgenre 04:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • IP blocked for a month to match Sugar Bear's block per
    talk) 22:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Shouldn't Sugar Bear's block be lengthened again per
WP:EVADE? RG (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
He's already blocked for a month while you got off scot free somehow despite your edit warring with him. Don't push your luck.
talk) 02:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This user has a history of sockpuppetting to evade blocks/bans. He was previously blocked under the account

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who had then been indef blocked for continued sockpuppetry. He was unblocked on the condition that he would not edit war, and would not sockpuppet, period. CU is required here, as this' users current status(indef or not to indef) hinges on whether or not they have sockpuppetted. If they indeed have, I'll start the indef discussion.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date 04:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC))
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by RG (talk)

This has duck written all over it. This IP has only been editing articles relating to groups like Hed PE and the Insane Clown Posse, both of which are some of Sugar Bear's favorite groups and he has edited those articles heavily. Also, his last IP, which was used for a block evasion, was blocked on the June 23 the same date this IP started editing again for the first time in months. This is yet another block evasion and I believe action needs to be taken and Sugar Bear's block length should be increased. RG (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
Comments by other users

Obvious duck case. CU is needed to determine a rangeblock.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think SB is socking with an IP, which seems to be at a public library. I don't see much need for a CU. Rather, I think it's time for an ANI thread, to gauge whatever consensus there may be for either a longer block (3-6 months) or a ban. SB is already blocked for a month so there is plenty of time to deal with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of yet another SPI on this user I have extended his block to indefinite and advised to consider
talk) 16:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
CheckUser requests
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


duck, it comes from the same basic area as the IPs listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24/Archive, and follows Sugar Bear's MO, take for instance these two edits 1 & 2. Range blocking isn't really needed here, as the IP is a static public library address. Agree that it's probably time to move this to AN/I to discuss sanctions that should be applied to SB, unless an admin feels like exercising the some discretion that'll satisfy the complaining parties (also needs to be decided what to do with this IP, although SPI can probably work that out with out help from AN/I ). Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

01 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Another DUCK case. This report is simply to track them as they come in. He's editing from his college again.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


02 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

This case is simply for tracking. The socking is so obvious. Please block these IPs.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I now have even more convincing evidence.

When SB started socking today, his first edit was made at 22:03, July 2, 2010 UTC, more than two hours after he had posted to his talk page today.

This IP range is a library in the same city he exists in, as confirmed by previous IP socks confirmed to be him by checkuser. The point is thus; he never edits at the same time as the IP, because he is driving to and from the library, or his college. He only edits from home, because he doesn't want to give away the fact that he actually is evading his ban.

Further, the edits from this IP are rather odd; they show knowledge of wikipedia jargon, such as 'rv', an edit summary typically, and only typically used by users who edit wikipedia frequently, not to mention an understanding of what a template is, where they are located, and how to edit them, and further, they IPs are editing in favor of SB's preferred version on Hed PE, an article that he socked to edit war over in the past.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • talk) 08:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
25 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Aside from the similar edit above, the possible sock has been inactive for over a year, where they were previously active on a completely unrelated article. So they come out of inactivity, to only push for the POV of a banned editor? Further, their editing times(eg, when they log on to edit) are very similar of the banned user Sugar bear, at least within an hour, or a few minutes.

For past history, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24/Archive. The banned user is known to lie despite clear evidence to the contrary, even going so far as to claim that their provider got IPs mixed up, something technically impossible.

CU is required to confirm if this is indeed him, and not some other user, which for some reason is acting and behaving like him. If this account was indeed a sleeper, a check for other sleepers would need to be run, as if this is a sleeper, we somehow missed it the first time(likely do to the first two unrelated edits).

Also, if this is indeed a sock, it would be reason why the standard offer would be reset/pulled from this user, should they try to ask for unbanning anytime soon. — Dædαlus Contribs 21:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorsing, because while there is some similarity, there is not enough to duck sock. In addition, Sugar Bear has a history of socking like this, so a sleeper check would be helpful. (X! · talk)  · @965  ·  22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated. No sleepers. --Deskana (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That answers that question, then. (X! · talk)  · @048  ·  00:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
03 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
User compare report

http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/UserCompare/Sugar%20Bear.html

Other evidence

Unfortunately this report will be rather bare in terms of evidence, but that doesn't mean I believe any less that this user account is a sock of banned user Sugar Bear.

To start this off, let's begin with various suspicious activity of what appears to be a 'new account':

  • 4th edit, already demonstrates advanced knowledge of <ref> tag usage, such as referring to a previously created ref with parameters(most new accounts simply use the same markup as when they first referred to the same ref).
  • Advanced wiki markup knowledge, section linking.
  • Again, more advanced knowledge. New users typically don't know how to already make an article with sourcing, template usage, template parameters, within their 7th edit.
  • Or how to find the templates themselves as well
  • [7]: It could be said that the above was simply a move, however that cannot be argued given that both pages contain different text, different use of markup, etc.


Sugar Bear has a long history of edit warring; he has also socked to continue to edit war and as demonstrated through several discussion and ANI threads, this user has shown to have some kind of grudge against Nu-metal; to this end, they have edit warred over several accounts and articles to remove it from the infobox of their favorite bands, even doing so through sockpuppet accounts as mentioned above. Because of this, they were topic-banned from the relevant pages, and eventually banned after continued socking problems and the absolute denial of the latter.

The suspected sock has shown the same feelings as the master, edit warring across several pages; effectively acting as a genre-warrior, as the previous master was doing.

As I noted previously, the master had a problem with edit warring. Simply checking the history of their talk page shows the same, they've already been warned for edit warring by another user.

Of course, aside from the generalities of the behavioral, we also have the specifics, such as:

Although each is slightly different, they both contain the same change.


To sum it up, all in all, this account has not been acting, in my opinion, the way a person new to wikipedia would, and although they have made their edits slightly different from that of the masters, the same underlying pattern exists. CU is required to see if this is indeed a sock of the master.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC) — Dædαlus Contribs 02:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, the linked user compare report shows a large cross-over in edits, and a similar editing time(when they log on, maybe a half-hour to an hour difference).— Dædαlus Contribs 02:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - Tentative endorsal. I think it's quite likely given circumstances, but there are some substantial differences. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checkuser
    a/c) 03:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by RG

Like past IPs Sugar Bear used for block evasions, this account has been working on articles relating to two of Ibaranoff's favorite groups, Hed PE and Kottonmouth Kings (eg: [8], [9], [10].) This edit in particular seems like a dead give-away for him, since he didn't want Hed PE listed as any type of metal on their page. Unlike User:Wisdomtenacityfocus (which is an obvious sock), this account has been in use recently. Just to make sure I suggest we use the checkuser. RG (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorsing to see if this new user is Wisdomtenacityfocus, who was mentioned last time. All data on the master is stale, but we may be able to find something here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jarednette is Red X Unrelated to Wisdomtenacityfocus; otherwise, behavioral evidence will need to determine any connection to Sugar Bear. –MuZemike 23:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to close this for now. The accused sock hasn't edited in more than a week, and while it's possible they're the same, I don't really feel strongly enough about it to block. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


This user was already suspected upon account creation of being a sock, but I believe further evidence has continued to pile up in the interim. First of all, before changing his name to Sugar Bear, the user already had a history of sockpuppeting. Also, Sugar Bear had a string of IP sockpuppets after his account was banned in July 2010. His final edit was July 3, 2010. Wisdomtenacityfocus' first edit was August 10, 2010. Both users have the same areas of interest, namely, alternative rock and its subgenres, particularly, edit-warring over what genre an artist is. Both have a history of calling edits they disagree with vandalism (WTF, SB, SB, SB) and edit-warring against consensus (SB, WTF). Sugar Bear was eventually banned for the latter, among other things, and it appears as though Wisdomtenacityfocus is slowly but surely ramping up his behavior, moving towards a similar result. This is the first time I have submitted an SPI request, so I'm not sure if this would be considered sufficient to investigate further. I can provde more details if required.

[ —Torchiest talkedits 19:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked and tagged. --MuZemike 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


I am submitting an SPI report since i have strong suspicion that this user is a sockpuppet of Sugarbear. To begin with, he joined on May 8th 2012 right after his previous sock Wisdomtenacityfocus was blocked (April 29 2012). This user mainly edits and disrupts Juggalo and nu metal/rap rock related articles, topics Sugarbear was notorious for edit warring on.

As you can see with this edit on hed pe's self titled album [11] he removes all genres, keeping only "punk rock". If you check the editing history of Sugarbear and his other socks you'll see a pattern of them removing genres on hed pe articles (mostly genres related to metal such as nu metal and rap metal) in favor of punk rock. Here are some examples of such editing [12][13]. Infact just looking at the editing history of hed pe's first album will show Sugarbear and his numerous sockpuppets edit warring over the genre and enforcing their POV. Also of note is as soon as his previous account Wisdomtenacityfocus got blocked, his new suspected sock started frequently editing on ICP's The Mighty Death Pop! article, an article his old account was editing heavily on. This is the first time i have done something like this so sorry in advance if i may have made any mistakes. I call the big one bitey (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Comparing to the most recent sock in the archive, this looks highly suspicious. Not only does BigBabyChips edit many of the same articles in his brief stay on Wikipedia [14], but he even edits the same parts of the same articles: sock versus BigBabyChips; and sock verus BigBabyChips. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Likely. T. Canens (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Tim. Blocking and tagging, based on the combination of behavioral and technical evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


It's suspcious when a new user right away starts working on templates and categories. And after doing that relatively complicated work, within a few weeks of his first edits, you can see TheRealBoognish picked up on the exact same issues that Sugar Bear is hung up on: sweeping across dozens of band and album articles and changing genres, battling over the exact same stuff SB has been edit warring over for years. Here's just

WP:IDHT. I can provide more examples if required. —Torchiest talkedits 18:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The above is a little short on diffs, but there's a convincing similarity between these accounts, including resuming the same edit wars (1 and 2). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both. This editor has been making disruptive edits, and I had suspicions that he was using multiple accounts and logging out to edit as an IP and pretend to be other people. I'm not familiar with SugarBear- the editors I thought he was were other usernames and IPs, but they could all be the same person, and regardless, he was likely heading towards a block anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, it might be a good idea to keep an eye on those other named accounts in case any of them become more active and follow the same behavioral pattern. —Torchiest talkedits 16:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. The accounts I know of are dead, (JuggaloProghead was the other one I suspect off the top of my head) but the IPs have consistently come back over the years, though they accomplish little. As you noted, he seems to have an obsession over the application of certain metal music genre, like nu metal. He does it over pages that I or others monitor heavily, or are protected, so not much is done other than rejecting his questionable logic in interpreting sources. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional context that I can contribute: Sugar Bear doesn't believe nu metal even should exist as a term -
oops 13:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

18 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

In late June I filed this ANI case against Sugar Bear, involving lots of IP addresses, with the actions including a vengeful revert war against me performed by 166.182.84.172. The result was a rangeblock for Special:Contributions/166.182.80.0/21 and also for Special:Contributions/74.42.44.222/28. At the Young Black Teenagers article, IPs 166.182.84.172 and 74.42.44.210 made the same reversion, then along comes newly registered GangsterPunk doing the same thing.[15][16][17] The same sequence can be seen at Standing in the Spotlight and at Cocky (album). Looks like GangsterPunk is picking up where previous sock IPs had left off. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This is blatant harassment. Your claims are false and you provided no evidence. GangsterPunk (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please close down this witch hunt and stop harassing me. There is zero evidence for your claims. GangsterPunk (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Active block evasion. Blocked and not tagging. Closing. Alex Shih (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Doug Weller talk 14:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed to GangsterPunk. Blocked. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Extensive overlap in style and interests between OldUncleRemus and the various Sugar Bear socks and IPs, with a common interest in film genres and music genres. Here's a lengthy interaction chart showing just Sugar Bear and OldUncleRemus, and there are many more socks that could be compared. An example of typical genre warring activity is sockpuppet or IP 166.x changing Little Shop of Horrors to just comedy rather than black comedy[18][19] which is echoed in OldUncleRemus changing it from horror comedy to just comedy.[20] Sugar Bear categorized a film as a parody film[21] and years later OldUncleRemus changed the genre to parody film.[22] IP 166.x removed a Doors sample from the country rap article, and when it was restored three months later, OldUncleRemus removed it again.[23] Another type of change is a larger reorganization of an article; in this example a sock shuffles text around with the edit summary mentioning sections[24] followed years later by a similar text shuffle by OldUncleRemus who mentions sections in the edit summary.[25] Binksternet (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

18 June 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Sugar Bear has a history of using Oregon IPs, and neighboring parts of Washington. Southern Washington IP 166.181.253.26 showed up yesterday with a couple of edits that looked to me like Sugar Bear's style, which I reverted. That IP began a flurry of reversions and personal attacks in the same manner as 166.182.84.172 two years ago. During the reversions, an attack account Banksternet was created to continue the edit warring while using the edit summary "block evasion by User:Binksternet".[26][27] Both of these were blocked.

Oregon IP 166.181.254.122 showed up today with another flurry of reversions, and when these were countered, the warring edits were copied exactly by Oregon Joe – another brand new user. [28][29]

Checkuser requested to make certain. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answering request from zzuuzz for behavior analysis... Yes, this edit by MasterOfSparks420 is exactly the kind of thing Sugar Bear would do. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorsing this, but it's marginal. From the diffs provided, and the interaction analysis, I see connections between the two suspects presented here, and the two IP addresses (which CU isn't going to tell us anything about), but not anything that ties it back to the master of this case, or the only non-stale sock in the archives (OldUncleRemus). But, even at that, confirmation of the two suspects presented here would be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the IPs. The accounts are both confirmed to OldUncleRemus who is the latest account in the archive. One account needs  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation:

-- zzuuzz (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indef Oregon Joe and Bankstenet. Tagging them both as confirmed to OldUncleRemus and suspected to Sugar Bear. The IPs have already both been blocked for other reasons, so taking no further action on those. I don't see anything obvious to make me suspect MasterOfSparks420 on behavioral grounds, and didn't look beyond that, so no action taken there either. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24 July 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

This account came up in an unrelated check. See below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sugar_Bear/Archive&oldid=1136068023"