Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rationalobserver (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 20 February 2015 (→19 February 2015: even Victoria is now admitting that this was a mistake). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:17, 20 February 2015 by Rationalobserver (talk | contribs) (→19 February 2015: even Victoria is now admitting that this was a mistake)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

ItsLassieTime

ItsLassieTime (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive.

A long-term abuse case exists at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime.



19 February 2015

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

Comment - This has blown up a little beyond my expectation. My belief is that when a serial sock creates 108 confirmed accounts the inevitable fallout is that there will always be suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that the next account is lurking around the corner. I filed this, transparently, completely on my own initiative, solely based on a writing pattern that appears to be extremely similar to ILT's. Politics are the least of my motives and I'm surprised at the reaction. Regarding the close paraphrasing, if Moonriddengirl would be kind enough to take over when she has time, I'd appreciate that. If people think we should close this, that's fine by me too. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


Really? I'm the only person who's ever used the word "oops" in an edit summary? Here's a whole page you using "oops" in edit summaries. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments by other users

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

  • Comment - I don't see a connection here. If you are going to use the word "oops" for example to compare edit summaries that strikes me is a bit bizzare. The rest is just a he said she said argument. I would also recommend an uninvolved admin close this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - ILT has been back since the original sock drawer was busted, the sock Hat Act popped up on my radar a couple years after the first bust, only to be re-blocked, and I would not be in the lease surprised to hear this user is still around. A tendency to copy or closely paraphrase is a key trait, as well as a tendency to grab onto a limited, cherrypicked group of "scholarly" sources as evidence and then digging in and refusing to give ground is part of this user's MO. Add to this a lot of wounded feelings and playing the innocent. A tendency to create an online persona that induces sympathy (usually due to a made-up health issue or tragic life circumstances) and to quite tendentiously attack other users who call this individual on their problematic edits are also characteristic traits. In the limited diffs provided here, this does resemble the style of ILT, though at this point it's reasonable suspicion and I think more examples are needed. Also try Wizardman, if he's still around. Montanabw 19:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm commenting here because Victoria left a note on my talk, and because Rationalobserver has referred to me as having defended her when she was blocked over a previous suspicion. I don't know enough about ItsLassieTime to make a useful comment. I recently read this version of Irataba when RO asked me to review it, and I wondered whether there was close paraphrasing of one of the sources. I could only see it on snippet view, but the sentence structure (that I could see) looked similar.

    There have been a few issues with RO, including apparent gunning for certain people, leading to previous suspicions that RO was GabeMc (here) or Jazzerino (here). It would be good if it could be sorted out somehow. Pinging some people who have commented in case they have ideas: Mike V, Kww, Dennis Brown, Dan56, Radiopathy. Sarah (SV) 20:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • The problem is that not everyone is perfect, if Rational has been accused of being 4 different people the thing I see them all having in common is questionable behavior. Rational cant be 4 different people, I think what is happening is that editors are mistaking her actions as being sockish. If this continues I can see more would be sock accusations come forward. Sometimes a duck is a duck and sometimes it's just not - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any evidence of anything, but just so you know, the first sock-puppet accusation came after I thanked an editor for warning Radiopathy about marking non-vandalism edits as vandalism. Moments later, the editor I thanked accused me of being Radiopathy. So that's how the sockpuppet accusations started, just two weeks after I registered this account. Radiopathy later accused me of being GabeMC, and Dan56 also accused me of being Jazzerrino. So I've been accused of being the same person who accused me of being someone else. This is a retaliation witch hunt, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm commenting here because I was pinged to the discussions, based on my past experience with the sockmaster at FAC. The best observor and detector of ILT socks is VictoriaEarle, and considering the amount of damage done by ILT socks in the past, Victoria's observations should be taken seriously. My own observation is that the conversation at Talk:Irataba does ring ITL bells. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at more edits now, RO created the account on August 31, within the first month was editing project pages with a specific focus on plagiarism and paraphrasing project pages, and this first edit within a month to FAC is quite atypical of any new FAC reviewer-- in fact, it is atypical for experienced FAC reviewers. This is an editor who appears to know FAC better than frequent FAC reviewers, on their first post. And going after Victoria like this is typical of ILT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what passes for evidence here, but I would like to point out that the Editor Interaction Analyzer shows that I haven't edited even one page that ILT edited. So why would I be a sock of ILT but not show any interest in any of the same pages? What sense does that make? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
She is also trying to pin you to one of ILT's socks as evidence, which in my view unfairly widens the scope of articles that possibly could have been edited. In other words, its a long shot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I don't follow. My point is that I have never edited the same page as ILT, which I would think is rare for sock accounts, but what do I know? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Im saying that she is trying to compare your edits to not only ILT but all of the accounts she used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. But she's only listed ILT, 56tyvfg88yju, and Susanne2009NYC, and if you click on those names you'll see that the same holds true for them. I.e., I haven't edited a single page that these three accounts edited. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that as well, normally socks have an agenda and see nothing here. I am not saying Victoria is acting in bad faith but her evidence is nothing solid and if wrong which I suspect she is the result is hurting another editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have defended Rationalobserver in the past, but I see nothing on this page to explain this discussion she started on another editor's talk page - You were right, and I was wrong - in reaction to this SPI. I've suggested that she take a day off. No one likes to be charged with puppetry (I know I didn't like it), but the reaction here is shocking. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment2: ILT edited literally thousands of articles and different topics under different personas. There was little overlap between each alter-ego. So "not editing any artile ILT edited" is meaningless. It's the behavior that counts. And I will note that the personas ILT, HatAct and Buttermilk1950 shared an interest in topics related to the old west, broadly speaking, (I know because I was cleaning up those articles for the CCI) and so edits to a topic related to Native Americans do present some additional behavioral evidence. Montanabw 01:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing concrete though that establishes a truth behind it. Why would a sock account be promoting good articles and other than being accused of socking having no disruptive edits? @User:Victoriaearle, the last confirmed account that was blocked for socking linked to ILT was User:Lapzwans back in September 2012. RO's first edit was in August 2014 almost a full two years later. Have any IP's been blocked since 2012 related to ILT? 2009 - 2012 seems to be the period of sock activity, anything after that could be compared to Rational's edits, if any match up at the same time stamp then there would be no way that Rational was socking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Posting on Victoriaearle's talkpage is a sign. Sock User:DoverWheels posted there saying, "ItsLassieTime was NOT banned for plagiarism" as part of a long post about "Suzanne" getting a GA and and FA, talking about "revising passages that are too closely paraphrased from the original source. ... Essentially, to put some distance between the article passage and the cited source. This is a very simple process." Rationalobserver used a similar process in revising Irataba after there were complaints. Rationalobserver also has an interest in plagiarism, using How to Paraphrase Without Plagiarizing as a citation in editing WP:Close paraphrasing. She also edited WP:Plagiarism and started an RFC on the talkpage. EChastain (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm commenting because Rationionalobserver's behavior struck me as very odd. I first noticed her when she tried to get DS sanction against FA editor Eric Corbett and noticed when she hassled other FA editors. She is a new account as of 31 August, and said somewhere that she had edited for a few weeks under her real name, then stopped and started a new account under a different name. So she's not an experienced editor, according to her, but in looking at her edits, it doesn't make sense. And she's preoccupied with close paraphrasing and plagiarism.
Adds criticism of close paraphrasing of featured article candidate by Dan56 on 27 September
Seeks guidance from Moonriddengirl in dispute with Dan56 2 October 2014.
Rationalobserver adds critique to article she thinks is by Victoriaearle. Says point of Victoriaearle's concerns is to shame her. These are just examples. EChastain (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: can anyone offer a single, solitary diff showing a direct relationship to Rationalobserver and any other account? Just one, please. If you can't do this, then I must conclude that this is a vicious witchhunt based on nothing but paranoid delusions. If that is the case, then I recommend that the clerks and CU's warn and discipline the editors who have brought this case against her. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That is all I have been seeing as well, editors trying to pin Rational's edits to one of ILT's sock accounts. I would close this as stale as there has been no evidence brought forward that ILT has been active since 2012. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whatever faults she may have, I've been watching Rationalobserver very closely for a few weeks, and IMO, she's focused on building an encyclopedia more than most editors. If there are problems with her edits, then address them on the talk page. If she refuses to fix the problems or seems incompetent or incapable of change, then apply WP:ROPE. However, the frenzied rush to judgment here has me concerned. Take her to task on her work here and now, not on what some other account might have done. We have no good evidence linking her to these accounts, so deal only with her current behavior. As far as I can tell, she is functioning well within normal operating parameters. Lightbreather's comment is also very unhelpful, as she is clearly biased in regards to EC. I really hope Victoriaearle has good evidence here because if she doesn't, I suggest the admins take a look at some of her previous accusations on ANI (under her former account name) that turned out to be bogus and drama-inducing across the board. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Editing on and off Misplaced Pages before creating an account you like isn't unusual though, unless it can be proven that one of her past accounts was disruptive then we have nothing to go on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • True it isn't unusual, and supplying arbcom confidentially with the former account name (and having an arb drop by here and confirm its veracity without identifying the account) would be a big step in the right direction for exoneration. There is plenty of evidence above for a whole host of disruptive accounts and similar editing patterns. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Inactive Admin Note - I don't have a lot to offer in solution (or time) here, but I have done a great deal of digging, beginning a long time ago. I've even tried to engage, as I'm not pedantic about socking, just always looking for a solution. That exchange on her talk page was rather revealing itself. Being a former SPI clerk and active admin that worked sockpuppet cases daily for a couple of years, I am convinced we have multiple dots, I just don't know which to connect. But that they exist, I'm certain, and have said so previously. We have blocked as "unknown master" for less, but here, politics seems to be the obstacle rather than doubt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Dennis, you are so wrong. I am not a puppet, and I only have this one active account. You guys blindly follow the duck test, but any intelligent person knows that there are lots of birds that look pretty much like a duck, but aren't. I learned lots about this place as an IP and by watching. You think you can tell what a person should know by their edits, but I learn just as much by observing, which I've done here off and on for years. There is no evidence because I am not socking nor have I ever, nor do I see the point. You have no proof of anything, so your advice is to block without evidence or reason based on "gut" feelings. But what exactly am I disrupting? And if I am a sock what purpose am I serving? Victoria thinks I am ILT, who apparently once stalked her, but I never forced any interactions with Victoria; she initiated our conflict. Have any of these ILT socks ever written an article, and is it really proof that I am ILT because a biased person thinks there are close paraphrases in my articles? No neutral parties have looked at the close paraphrasing accusations, so at this point there is zero proof of any wrongdoing. This is essentially a trial by my detractors, and I have no defense team. If, as HJ Mitchell has said, blocks are meant to protect the project, what good would blocking me do? If I am not a sock, you are punishing an innocent person, but if I was ILT, wouldn't I just make a new account anyway? Why would I defend this one if it's really my 109th account, as Victoria claims? None of this makes any sense. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that the only connection that Victoria has drawn between me and ILT is the issue of close paraphrasing. But as of now she is the only one who thinks there is a problem with close paraphrasing in my work. It's a conflict that she is both the accuser and the judge of paraphrasing, which is subjective. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, Victoria isn't alone. SlimVirgin says above: "I recently read this version of Irataba when RO asked me to review it, and I wondered whether there was close paraphrasing of one of the sources. EChastain (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't alone in what? That's like saying, "You write words, with vowels and letters, just like another editor!" Are you kidding? Looking for and finding close paraphrasing during a review is the most common thing editors find. Do you expect people to believe that's evidence she's a sock? You must be kidding. Viriditas (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver. Per your comment above: "But as of now she is the only one who thinks there is a problem with close paraphrasing in my work." I repeat: SlimVirgin says above: "I recently read this version of Irataba when RO asked me to review it, and I wondered whether there was close paraphrasing of one of the sources. EChastain (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
But that's pretty vague, I wondered whether there was close paraphrasing of one of the sources. Was there? Is there now? Anyway, is it really that unusual to find a couple of close paraphrases in an editor's second article? Did you notice that the Copyright Clerk disagreed with Victoria's characterization of my article? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, Rationalobserver, you've changed everything between then and now, including the wording and the citations. EChastain (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken. Look here. These are the concerns Victoria expressed, and I didn't change anything until the Copyright Clerk disagreed with her characterization, stating: "while there is possibly some over-close paraphrasing in that section which could be improved, it does not remotely rise to the level of a copyright violation. And in several cases listed above, I would dispute that the paraphrasing is overly close. Blanking it with the copyright violation template was excessive in my view." There is no copyvio issue and there are no other connections between me and ILT. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that, as I said before, these aren't nearly as problematic as Victoria claims. Here's what the copyright clerk said: "while there is possibly some over-close paraphrasing in that section which could be improved, it does not remotely rise to the level of a copyright violation. And in several cases listed above, I would dispute that the paraphrasing is overly close. Blanking it with the copyright violation template was excessive in my view. At most {{Close paraphrasing}} should have been added to the section so that the material could be re-worked where necessary." So my work, which was the second article I ever wrote, isn't problematic in the first place, which undermines this entire witch hunt. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment2 My biggest concern is Rationalobserver's interations with Victoriaearle. She says to Victoriaearle, after she reverted Victoria's edits on Talk:Irataba and was reverted: "You're pulling out all the stops here. That sock must have really rattled your cage." Rationalobserver posts to Victoriaearle's talkpage "Why do I get the feeling that your newfound interest in me has do do with this? a reference to Rationalobserver's edits to Charles Dickens. Rationalobserver posts to Victoriaearle: "Victoria, would you object to my taking a look at your writing for close paraphrasing? after Knowledgekid suggests that she "just let it go". After posting a number of "Source integrity issues" on Talk:Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) that Rationalobserver thinks is by Victoriaearle she pings four FAC editors, saying: "I wanted you to see how well Victoria represent sources in "her" FACs." After being told that FAC was another editor's, and given the suggestion: "If this is personal (as that last comment suggests) can we please keep it to someone's talk page? , Rationalobserver answers, "Victoria was a co-nom though. Don't you see "any" of these as problematic? Rationalobserver says (above): "I never forced any interactions with Victoria; she initiated our conflict." (Elsewhere she blames SlimVirgin, saying "Don't bother, KK87. This all happened because of Sarah, so she'll obviously not do anything to correct the situation." ) EChastain (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that some of those comments were snippy, but I had just gotten accused of being ILT and my work confronted, so I was upset. All I meant was that I not once interacted with Victoria before she started confronting my work as her first edits of the day. I said it was SlimVirgin's fault because she refused to follow-up at Irataba regarding an issue with Waters that I fixed in two days time. Had she followed up I would never have commented about it at her talk page, and Victoria would never have "gotten an eerie feeling" I was ILT. I think Victoria has PTSD from being harassed by ILT, and now she sees them everywhere, even two years after the last sock was caught. You obviously have it out for me regardless of this thread, and you still haven't provided a link to confirm accusations you levied against me a couple of weeks ago. Anyway, there aren't any copyvios in my articles, so where is the connection? There is no overlap in interest and no similar behavior regarding copyvios, as Victoria claims. This report is complete bullshit, and I get the feeling you know that but don't care as long as I get blocked. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime Add topic