Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive.

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

19 February 2015

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

• ItsLassieTime has had many confirmed socks, (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ItsLassieTime), and I've scrubbed quite a lot of the work done by the various accounts, but mostly work done by the account Susanne2009NYC. A couple of days ago I saw an edit summary that made me think of that account. This RO comment is similar in tone this Susanne2009NYC comment. Yesterday I saw this RO comment on SlimVirgin's talk page and it struck me as equally similar.
• Because I've spent so much time scrutinizing ItsLassieTime's work, [1], [2], [3], [4], I decided to take a look at Rose-Baley Party, which RO wrote. I found the source online here, and only ten pages in found these instances of close paraphrasing that I posted to the talk page here. I also posted here to talk Irataba because the same material is in both articles, but that post got reverted, [5]. I've pinged Moonriddengirl and am pinging Ruhrfisch who also might recognize the style. I did have a fair amount of harassment from ItsLassietime on my talk and might have some old IPs but at this point I believe it would all be stale and we have to go on behavioral patterns. Also pinging Montanabw, who I believe, knows ItsLassietime from one of the other accounts.
• Less telling, but still are these edit summaries using "oops" or a variation of it, found on a very quick scan of contribs, RO here, and Susanne here on the first rev-deleted edit. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 18:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Instances of close paraphrasing on Irataba shown here only from the article's first section. Much of the article has since been reworked and these edits removed, but this is what's found via snippet view (i.e. limited view). Victoria (tk) 20:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Susanne2009NYC's comment to SandyGeorgia about "paraphrasing in an acceptable manner", here, and RO's reply re paraphrasing that "I don't see any of these as problematic", here. Victoria (tk) 20:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Adding WP:CCI for ItsLassietime and socks: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. Victoria (tk) 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• From the sock drawer, 56tyvfg88yju's 3rd and 4th edits to an album FAC: [6], and [7]
• After a month or so of editing, RO makes this comment on a song FAC: [8]. Victoria (tk) 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Astute observation here. One problem with behavioral evidence is that generally the socks in the drawer focus on different areas. Victoria (tk) 23:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Some of the socks have done the following: creates a user page and then proceeds to edit heavily on a specific page: Buttermilk1950, 736StIves, Audiobooks7, EatNoPig and jumping down the list of names to Susanne2009NYC. That's only a few of the 108 on the list. Rationalobserver follows the pattern by starting their user page and then proceeding to edit heavily in a specific area, [9]. Victoria (tk) 01:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Another astute comment here from KnowledgeKid. That's exactly what the pattern has been: edit heavily in specific areas, review at GA or FA, a couple of the accounts have brought articles to GA and FA (and those had to be scrubbed) but otherwise the accounts were usually fine until blocked. Behaviorally RO is showing the same pattern. Victoria (tk) 02:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Knowledgekid87 - to your question about the apparent hiatus in activity, see here about IP range blocks. MuZemike might know more about that. Victoria (tk) 03:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Below are two more that MuZemike confirmed and notified me about. I don't seem to be able to edit the category page, but they should be added anyway. Diffs here, [10], [11]. Victoria (tk) 16:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Informationfountain (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CharlesWTrowbridge (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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^(talk) 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) ^(talk) 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^(talk) 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.[12] 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."[13] 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.[14] She also edited WP:Plagiarism[15] and started an RFC [16] 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[17] 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[18]

Seeks guidance from Moonriddengirl in dispute with Dan56[19] 2 October 2014.

Rationalobserver adds critique to article she thinks is by Victoriaearle.[20] Says point of Victoriaearle's concerns is to shame her.[21] 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)

• Comment I noted RO did not appear to be her first account, and got this reply. Given the controversy and blocking of recent "procivility" accounts as socks, I recommended a note to arbcom, which RO declined. Comments in support or otherwise of suspicion here are going to be predictable based on folks' alliances, so more uninvolved comments are needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Editing on and off Wikipedia 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)

• Casliber, I turned down your offer to reveal my previous account to ArbCom because it's not required unless someone is going for admin, which I would never do. But if confirming that account now "would be a big step in the right direction for exoneration" then I'll do it. Just please tell me how. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• I just emailed Roger Davies and declared my previous account. I also asked him to comment here to confirm that I have done so. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:04, 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)

---