| Revision as of 20:03, 19 February 2015 editVictoriaearle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,095 edits →19 February 2015: add Irataba← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:07, 19 February 2015 edit undoKnowledgekid87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers96,753 edits →Comments by other usersNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| <small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small> | <small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small> | ||
| *'''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. - ] (]) 19:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | *'''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. - ] (]) 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:56, 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:07, 19 February 2015
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
- 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:Misplaced Pages 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, , , , , 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, . 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)
- 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)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories: