Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:WorkerBee74

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

68.31.80.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

70.9.72.38‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

70.9.18.59‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

68.31.185.221‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

74.94.99.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Clubjuggle ^T/C 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Apparent !vote-stacking at Talk:Barack Obama#Centralizing Rezko discussion and general abuse of process.

A checkuser turned up a "possible" link between User:WorkerBee74 and the 1st three IP addresses; the last two were not included in the request. The possible match was based on a common ISP (Sprint PCS). Though there was no direct IP match, it was noted that IPs were known to change rapidly on this ISP, probably due to its nature as a cellular service provider. Most devices on this network would be cellular phones with WAP-enabled Internet access. The 4th IP address on the list is also owned by Sprint PCS but was not included in the RFCU.

The final IP address on the list is registered to Comcast Business. An edit yesterday from 74.94.99.17 added "arbitrary section breaks" to a long discussion section with an edit summary of "Arbitrary section breaks are necessary for people using laptops or other devices with limited RAM". Reality is that arbitrary section breaks would be useless in improving page-rendering for laptops, but based on my own experience (which includes experience with Sprint/Nextel), most WAP-enabled cell phones Blackberries and the like are incapable of displaying very long sections of text without headers that can be rendered by the wireless carrier's proxy server as page breaks. A similar edit without explanation was made by WorkerBee74 on 22 June. Again, I know of no purpose for such arbitrary section breaks besides aiding rendering of pages on a cellular phone or Blackberry.

In this edit WorkerBee74 claimed an 'inability to cut and paste'. Given his apparent ability to understand complex concepts as evidenced by his ability to use and cite various Wikipedia policies, this is far more likely to be a question of device limitations than of technical ability. The user did not respond to a query asking him why he couldn't cut and paste.

At [1] WorkerBee74 asserts that the IP !votes came from other users on his ISP; however the probabiliity that 3 different anon-users all showed up on the same day, all on Sprint PCS phones, all to vote on the same question in the same article, and oh, by the way, all happened to vote the same way, conveniently after someone was kind enough to add arbitrary section breaks in case someone surfing Wikipedia from a cell phone should happen by the talk page, probably satisfies WP:SNOW.

Comments

While "wiggle room" might normally be allowed for dynamic IPs, Clubjuggle's timing and "section break" evidence is pretty conclusive. I found WorkerBee's behavior suspicious from the get-go, when he created his user page with "So how do I get started?" then immediately dove into the fray using wiki markup and citing Wikipedia protocol. This guy looks to be an experienced editor using new accounts and IP addresses to distort the consensus-building process solely on Barack Obama-related articles.

Someone give Clubjuggle a Detective's barnstar. Shem^(talk) 01:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait. There's a Detective's Barnstar?! Me want! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 12:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. These IP addresses are all likely to be the same user as WorkerBee, but I can only assert with confidence that the fourth one on the list is definitely not a new user from the fact that it attacks others who accuse him of being an SPA in the edit summaries, and WorkerBee also has a history of difficult communications. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 04:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, the IP "74.94.99.17" (the one registered to Comcast Business, and used in Chicago) has some internet history:

• See posts by "Bill Janowski" here (possibly from Elmhurst, Illinois).
• See post by "Aria51" here (Chicago-related).

I have not been able to find any evidence of these names, or a few variations, on Wikipedia. Dunno if this is useful info or not. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess, and this is only a guess, is that this is the IP address of a wifi hotspot, library or Internet café. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, we would probably see a bit more internet activity; however, it is certainly possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My concern with the Comcast business account is that it geolocates to Chicago while all of the other IP addresses geolocate to St. Petersburg, FL. It could be that whatever business was used just happens to have its proxy servers in Chicago. It is also problematic in that since it is a proxy server, more than one person may have been using the IP address and as a result, many of the contributions have been to non-Obama related articles (and vandalism apparently). Other than that, there really isn't any doubt, in my opinion, that WorkerBee74 and the Sprint PCS IPs are the same user. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago address is probably the most likely to be accurate. The remaining IP addresses belong to Sprint PCS, so access would be through POP(s) located at one or a few locations nationally. For example, my AT&T wireless phone has, at the moment, an IP address that resolves to Easthampton, MA, even though I'm in Pennsylvania. When I was with T-Mobile, I got IP addresses in Texas. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the Sprint IP addresses used to vote could just as easily have been used by Clubjuggle or Bobblehead, or anyone else on that page, to create "bad hand" accounts. It could have been Shem, SCJ, Tvoz, or any other editor. The checkuser admin himself said that there is no direct IP link between me and the IP addresses listed above, so your case is very weak. It could just as easily have been someone else's "bad hand" account.

Now that the checkuser announced that I use Sprint, anyone can post personal attacks using a Sprint cell phone and I'll be blamed for them. It was an invitation for more mischief from their side of the content dispute. It is far too easy for anyone to post under a Sprint IP address. I've never logged out to vote. I've never voted from an IP address, and I've exposed numerous distortions and misrepresentations on Talk:Barack Obama by SCJ, so he can't be trusted. Also, this is the second time this little group of witch hunters asked for a checkuser against K4T and the second time it was unrelated, so it's not as though their hunches are right all the time. Don't trust them. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC) The flaw in that theory is that whoever was trying to make create said "bad hand" accounts would have had to know what ISP you use ahead of time. Of course, they would have had no way to know that, since the checkuser was not run until after the activity happened. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How could anyone have "set you up," WorkerBee, if no one knew your ISP prior to yesterday's CheckUser request? Shem^(talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. The classic "It wasn't me, it was the submitters!" defense. If I only had a dime for the number of times a person accused of sockpuppetry has accused me of being the true puppetmaster... I believe Occam's razor answers that defense fairly well. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now gentlemen, I've already had to expose several other misrepresentations at Talk:Barack Obama. Don't make me do it to you here as well. Did I say that I've been "set up"? No. I've only said that someone was possibly setting up "bad hand" accounts using a Sprint cell phone and, now that they know I use Sprint, they could set me up at some future date. Claiming that I have said anything else is another misrepresentation. Bobblehead, I didin't say that it was you. I said that it could have been you, or any other editor on the page. Again, claiming that I said anything else is a misrepresentation.

Some people would call it "lying." But I try to avoid such harsh language. You're misrepresenting what I've said, and I also detect a little bit of ridicule in there. Stop it.

Anybody can set up a Sprint cell phone account and start creating bad hand accounts at Wikipedia.

Anybody.

I have no control over that. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not everybody. Apart from the Comcast account which I use for Wikipedia, my only access to the internet is with my crappy Nokia 6102i cellphone. That's with AT&T, by the way. No chance of using Wikipedia with that. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see - so someone else who edits Obama coincidentally was setting up "bad hand" accounts (new term to me, I guess I'm not so devious) to deliberately vote against their own positions, using a Sprint cellphone (nope, I've been on AT&T/Cingular/AT&T for 16 years and, sigh, nothing even close to an IPhone or Blackberry) because they, what, had a feeling they might be able to also accuse someone of socking with it? And then they got incredibly lucky and it turned out that you, WorkerBee, have been exposed as having one so the bad-hander really hit paydirt and can accuse you of being a sock? And you figured all of this out, but of course never did such a thing? Ok, Bobblehead is right. Occam's razor. (By the way - I assume you know behavior is often used as a legitimate sock-identifier, even when CU is negative.) Tvoz/talk 19:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you're misrepresenting Occam's Razor, which only allows you to eliminate impossible solutions. It is possible that Scjessey is lying about not having a Sprint cell phone. It is also possible that Shem, or LotLE, or someone else on the exclusionist side owns a Sprint cell phone. There are millions of them.

You will probably be more receptive to the possibility that Fovean Author or Andyvphil was using a Sprint cell phone to evade their respective blocks. After all, they are the "other side" in the content dispute, so if anyone has misbehaved, it must be them, right? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Occam's razor is most often paraphrased in English as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Now which of us is lying misrepresenting facts?

I have not taken a "side" in the Rezko language debate, so the idea that you represent the "other side" to me is meaningless. There is no evidence that anyone has misbehaved, besides you. The "arbitray section breaks" necessary to facilitate sufring from a cell phone were placed from your account in one cited case, and from the Comcast IP in the second. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If it is determined that WorkerBee74 has been socking with the various IP accounts, could we please run a checkuser against the ones identified in other sockpuppet reports as well? There are some not listed here, including some old banned users, that have not been run as far as I know. Wikidemo (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there is any connection between WB74 and another of the other socks that have been on the page. At least, not as far as a checkuser could identify. Since WB74 is operating from an ISP that has dynamic IP addresses it is virtually impossible to figure out what other users may have been operating from that ISP without already having an inkling who those other users are. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I do have some in mind. It would take a while to compile them. But it's quite possible that more than one sock puppeter / block evader is on the article right now. Also, if we accept deliberate game-playing with mobile phone IP editing to stack votes and create false appearance of consensus, it seems likely that this editor is using non-mobile accounts as well. How would we catch that? - Wikidemo (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pattern analysis. Find the patterns among the IPs and IDs, collect the diffs, and come back to RFCU with a well formed and supported list of IPs, ranges, and users to check, supported by diffs showing behaviours, as an addendum to the case (or start a new one with the same name if it got archived.... I will tell you this, I did not just check the IPs you gave before drawing the conclusions I did. Or just block on behaviours. Or... give up on these polls as a bad job, and just go for getting some previously uninvolved admins to come and determine what the real consensus is. That can't be done by counting noses, so it's harder to falsify. It takes good reasons and cooperation. I've already asked a previously uninvolved admin to pop in and take a look. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the things WB74 has said elsewhere in his own defense are worth repeating here: "[This is] a lot like saying, 'The guys who raped that white woman were black, and you're black, so we're stringing you up from this lamppost.' "[2] Also, this is the second time a Checkuser has been done on me, and the second time the report has said that the socks are unrelated to me. Take all accusations with a grain of salt. If the criminal justice system in America was guided by Occam's Razor, there would be a lot of innocent men in prison. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"the report has said that the socks are unrelated to me" would be incomplete. It says it is very consistent with the data that several of the IPs are WorkerBee74. That's not unrelated. It also says that some of the other IDs named don't have data that supports a connection. That IS unrelated. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do next. The normal process, where concerned editors gather evidence and present a complete request to RFCU, doesn't seem practical because none of the regular editors are up to the complexity of the task. The sock puppeting that appears to be going on isn't of the nature that can easily be discounted by ignoring or weighing polls because it carries over to consensus discussions, administrative reports, process discussinos, etc., and it's greatly disrupted an important article. None of us have the time or expertise to get a handle on it. That probably explains the proliferation of inconclusive reports. We seem to be exactly where we started, that there is likely socking, that we have some sense of at least some of the potential participants, but no resolution. Three people have been blocked for socking but not the three one would have expected. Wikidemo (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

---

Note: Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth for more information about WB and the IPs mentioned here. This is, I believe, the case referred to in some narrative above. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• At this point, all the IP activity is stale except for User:74.94.99.17. Socking looks likely, but I'm not going to block anyone for month-old violations. If action is going to be taken against these IPs or against WorkerBee74, it needs to be for current activity, or it needs to be demonstrated that these accounts are tied to a banned sockpuppeteer. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)