Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 (2nd nomination)

User:WorkerBee74

Suspected sockpuppeteer: WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 300wackerdrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 160.109.101.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Good Damon 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First some context. The "300wackerdrive" account is a brand-new single-purpose account that has been entirely focused on the article Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which is currently the subject of various edit wars regarding current events. Its first nine edits ever (see the contributions) were either to the article or to its talk page. The account's fourth edit was defended by the anonymous editor, 160.109.101.193, and the sixth edit was defended by WorkerBee74 here with a demonstrably incorrect statement that the new edits were "the current balanced, NPOV, consensus version." This was WorkerBee74's 3rd defense of roughly the same content, which was originally added by Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a topic-banned editor, with these edits. Prior to this, WorkerBee74 has no edit history on the ACORN page. There was a little bit more back-and forth, and then:

Surprisingly knowledgeable about Wikipedia procedures

300wackerdrive demonstrates knowledge of Wikipedia's policies beyond what one would expect from a brand-new single-purpose account, requesting page protection when even experienced editors may not know how.

Tendentious editing in defense of each other

After supporting the edits on the article's talk page on the 13th and 14th of October (example, with support of WorkerBee74, here):
- 300wackerdrive disappears until this edit, restoring the contentious material.
- The SPA reverts here, then after being reverted, makes a small edit here, followed immediately by restoring the same material here.
- The account makes several more edits, eventually gets much of it reverted, and then WorkerBee74 appears and reverts here, thus sidestepping 3RR.
As the edit war progresses, 300wackerdrive restores the material here, announcing "This is the new consensus version" much the way WorkerBee74 did before.

Very similar terminlogy

The wording for falsely claiming consensus, combined with the timing of WorkerBee74's appearances to defend the SPA's edits, the SPA's knowledge of policy, and the single IP address edit -- which appears between 300wackerdrive's edit and WorkerBee74's defense of the edit -- leads me to suspect sock puppetry, with the IP address edit an accidental failure to log in for the edit.
WorkerBee74 describes LotLE's edits as unilateral.
300wackerdrive describes LotLE's edits as unilateral.
Finally, both accounts leave out edit summaries with very similar frequency. Going through the much longer contribution history of WorkerBee74, there appears to be about the same ratio for both. The edit summaries, when they are there, tend to match in capitalization, spelling, and style. --Good Damon 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Endorse GoodDamon's evidence, above. Additional comments:

Revert pattern & timing: 300wackerdrive first edit was to revert last Monday 19:53 13Oct08, followed by 2 more reverts of the same info to 3RR. WB74 joined after the 2nd revert [1], also reverting another time before the page was fully protected.

Today, 300wackerdrive again starts an edit war with a similar revert Monday 18:53 20Oct08, followed by 2 more reverts to 3RR. WB74 joined after the 300's 3rd revert [2]

Focus on LotLE: Last week, an exchange took place on the ACORN talkpage regarding WB74's and Lulu's contributions. Both WB74 and 300wackerdrive advanced or supported the arguement that (their version was better because) LotLE's editing in particular was "suspicious". WB74 also disparages Lulu at ANI last week - 300wacker did not comment on that thread.

This week, 300wackerdrive's consensus proposal (after reaching 3RR) leads out with "Since LotLE has chosen to unilaterally whitewash..." WB74 supports the reverts and supports the white-wash claim.

--guyzero | talk 01:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an uninvolved editor. But for what it's worth, it does appear WB74 is involved in sockpuppetry and highly contentious editing (he just, again, reverted on the Acorn article and in the process attacked the motives of the previous editor). It isn't reassuring that he keeps charging ahead with the edit-jihad even as this process has begun. I wish he'd find some other area to productively edit.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Scjessey: Admins investigating this case should rely on behavioral similarities, since WorkerBee74 has been known to use a service which employs dynamic IP addressing (such as Sprint). It is unlikely that checkuser-like tools will yield any useful results. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the Falsely Accused (for the 2nd Time) I can't help it if a newbie starts borrowing the words I use. During the previous witch hunt, I couldn't help it when a newbie was using the same ISP as me. These witch hunters don't want admins to use CU because it will show (most likely) that 300wackerdrive is hundreds, or even thousands of miles away. The previous person who started the witch hunt was User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, a repeatedly blocked and hundred times warned editwarrior, POV pusher and troll who is successfully WP:OWNing and whitewashing any article that has anything to do with Barack Obama. This time, LotLE has employed his army of meatpuppets to pursue his witch hunt. He canvasses them when he hits 3RR, they show up, and they follow his lead - sometimes requiring LotLE's corrective leadership on their User Talk to pursue his editwar properly (see Guyzero). They use false sockpuppetry accusations like a club to intimidate people. They are using WP as a propaganda vehicle to help get Obama elected, by suppressing any material that might cast him in a negative light. Since ACORN is associated with Obama, and since 21+ employees have been indicted or convicted on voter registration fraud charges with several more investigations under way, they seek to delete any mention of the Obama association and submerge mentions of the many investigations, indictments and convictions under an ocean of gray text. Kindly employ the words "Unrelated" and "SSP is not used for fishing" to stuff this false accusation back down their lying throats where it belongs, and keep an eye on their widespread editwarring, canvassing, bullying, and WP:OWN violations. Thanks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Forgot to mention that they made the same false SSP accusation against Kossack4Truth. Not once, not twice, but three times. This seems to be their favorite weapon in their attempts to drive off editors who disagree with their agenda. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, run a checkuser. I don't know where WorkerBee74 got the idea that I wouldn't like a checkuser run; it's just not the only tool in the toolbox. I'm fully aware of its limitations, and would simply ask that behavioral patterns be analyzed as well. As for the other topics:

Lulu the "repeatedly blocked and hundred times warned editwarrior" - Again, by all means look at Lulu's block log. Here's a link. Their contexts are quite obvious. Note that about half the entries there are for unblocks due to improperly performed blocks.
Meatpuppetry accusation - I strongly encourage admins to look at the contribution histories of every user WorkerBee74 names, and even my own. None of us are single-purpose accounts. WorkerBee74 is. Accusations of meatpuppetry ring very false when two SPAs with identical editing styles level them against multiple non-SPAs with extremely varied editing styles.
Suppressing negative material - Barack Obama? This sockpuppetry case is based on edits in the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article. Who was talking about Barack Obama? Your SPA stripes are showing. In any event, I and others have tried repeatedly to explain that Barack Obama is a biography of a living person, so attempts to include poorly sourced attacks are not permitted. And there was recently yet another featured article review of that page, which it passed, so defending it against massive alteration is by no means edit-warring.
Kossack4Truth - Again, a reminder that that particular user is topic-banned. Not exactly a sterling example of editing.
"Lying throats" and the rest - Not worth bothering to respond to.

Admins, thank you for taking the time to read all this. --Good Damon 13:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Thanks for bringing this here GoodDamon. Grsz ^Review! 14:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wikidemon

I would like to dispel some of the above accusations WorkerBee74 is leveling - this time at Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, although he and the various other SPAs make the exact same claims about the dozen or more other long-time editors who stand between them and turning Wikipedia into a platform for disparaging Barack Obama. The majority of editors remaining on Obama-related pages are reasonably neutral and well behaved in their edits, while most of the SPA contingent are now on long term block or topic ban under article probation (Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation). WorkerBee74 is one of the last remaining troublemakers. Interspersed with welcome breaks from editing are periods of edit warring and vituperation whenever he returns to the Obama articles. It is simply not true that past reports cleared WorkerBee74 of sockpuppetry. They reached the opposite conclusion, that it was likely he had abusively used an IP sockpuppet. Moreover, there have been a string of obvious sockpuppets on some Obama-related pages - SPAs who clearly misrepresented who they were and in their first edits immediately jumped into the middle of ongoing content wars demonstrating a familiarity with, albeit little adherence to, Wikipedia's practices and procedures. All of these suspicious accounts have edit warred on the same anti-Obama content, while making uncivil accusations of ownership, electioneering, whitewashing, process abuse, a pro-Oobama Cabal, etc. They also shared a number of slogans, stylistic traits, and editing patterns in common. Perhaps one aggrieved conspiratorial minded anti-Obama editor looks like the next when they are ditto-heading each other; perhaps the same editor is behind more than one of the accounts. I have no particular opinion or evidence in this case. However, the attitude WorkerBee74 displays here (which matches his actions on the talk and article pages) is a blatant violation of article probation, and sockpuppetry or no, WorkerBee74 really ought to set that to the side when logging into Wikipedia or else avoid the articles that cause him such grief.Wikidemon (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 300wackerdrive

Disgusting. 300wackerdrive (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Being bold: This case is too complex and heated for 1 admin to deal. I suggest request a CU to get an accurate picture. Subjective interpretational evidence wouldn't be enough. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I was asked to look into this via email. Sam Korn has recently investigated some of this and I've encouraged him to comment here if appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, then. Would it be appropriate to re-open the closed portion of the discussion? --Good Damon 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you like. Or open a new CU case at WP:RFCU ... it will be the top (#3) section of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74 ... dunno if that's needed. Sam asked me to double check his checks, which I am about to do. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have decided to do a CU, I can think of a few named you might want to try matching against the IPs and/or WB. I don't want to make any idle public accusations that go nowhere so I would rather wait to see if anyone is actually going to do a CU.Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have this case opened, and the CU run in association with it. If I have permission, I'll reopen it. --Good Damon 22:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty certain that "WorkerBee74" is the account the user uses when logged in via a small device (smart phone or similar). Under that account, s/he frequently complains of inability to cut-and-paste. The other accounts used seem to be the "land line" accounts. I think WB knows this well enough, and it is easy enough to keep the device logins separate; hence, WB frequently taunts "try to match my IP to that other one". This system gaming, unfortunately, is likely to foil additional check-user attempts, since the mobile device and the land line really are in different IP ranges. I suspect that the only evidence we'll get (which seems compelling) is based on edit patterns and common verbal idiosyncracies. LotLE×talk 22:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard answer then, as always, to the taunting question of "can you prove I'm a sock of X" is: "who cares". In this sort of situation where what we are dealing with is contentious and disruptive editing, it to a certain level does not matter who is whose sock. Block on behaviour, and block on behaviour again, and again, until the contentiousness and edit warring stop. I don't care who is doing it, I just want it to stop. Sorry for the rant but that is the thing to do. Go forth and do it, I say. I need to reconfirm with Sam about this before I say what findings I have and I will do that in due course. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar and I have agreed that the technical evidence is

Inconclusive. Frankly, if the behaviour is compelling, or in itself disruptive, using CU to prove that it is a sockpuppet is unnecessary. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then as a technical matter, would the next step be to open an incident report on ANI? I feel the guidelines for dealing with disruptive editors at WP:DISRUPT have been more than met. The circumstantial evidence for sockpuppetry in my opinion is fairly strong, but the evidence for disruptive behavior by both accounts regardless of sockpuppetry is rock solid. --Good Damon 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's probably the way to go. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]