Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:05, 18 December 2014

Jazzerino

Jazzerino (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/Jazzerino/Archive.

06 December 2014

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Flow Ridian (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Harmelodix (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 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

Account created 31 August, around the time of all those blockings of Jazzerino's socks. This user Rational Observer's contributions are focused strictly on syntax and grammatical changes, bookended by two strenuous attempts to obstruct actions by me--their first series of edits or involvement at WP was opposing a change I had proposed (), seeing it all the way to what they felt was its end (), and recently at opposing an FAC of mine, the first they've reviewed, with trivial objections to syntax and a concerted effort to subvert the guideline on close paraphrasing that justifies its use in the article (, ) and derail the FAC, which they've now turned to a referendum on "dan56 and close paraphrasing". IMO, if true, then more careful than Harmelodix and Flow Ridian (whose disruption also spilled over into a review of my past FAC) if any of this is true, and like Harmelodix, their revelations raise some red flags to me (Harmelodix, RationalObserver on their past experiences). All accounts' edit summaries quack some; they also focus significantly on WP:LQ, and RationalObserver's comments about checking for compliance with LQ are eerily familiar to Flow Ridian's few remarks about "Check the article for compliance with LQ". Flow Ridian's original aim at WP is in effect the other users' activities as well. But what raised a red flag in my mind originally, enough to start digging again, was this comment by Rationalobserver about how I "always resort to personal attacks and insults"; what could they be referring to as an editor with (presumably) no previous direct exchanges with me? Dan56 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

RationalObserver attempted to rewrite policy without any consensus/discussion to reinforce his objection at my FAC. They then posted this remark about what's acceptable paraphrasing or not, and proceeded to revise the policy again to substantiate it. Dan56 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this reference to a past FAC where FlowRidian pretended to critically review the article (and which was later referred to by Harmelodix in the RfC he/she created against me) may suggest something. Dan56 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Another editor brought up something interesting at at their talk page, considering RationalObserver's general activity at WP: "...difficult to believe you're a new user. For one thing, you have jumped feet first into hotspot areas, where you seem set on being as inflammatory as possible. You have 50% edits to Misplaced Pages space, 30% to Misplaced Pages talk, and 3.4% to article space..." Dan56 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Recently, RationalObserver offered this shallow support of an FAC based on prose, yet did not impose an impossible standard of paraphrasing and copyright rules as he/she had at my FAC, not reviewing and finding instances of verbatim text in the article they're supporting, such as "pleaded not guilty to the charge on the grounds of self-defence" (ref.77), "a lack of evidence" (ref.78), "Webster's parole was revoked" (ref.76), "undertake work release" (ref.74), and "her mother, who was told that responsible adults would be attending the party" (ref.16). Considering his objections at my FAC, these actionable issues would have been nitpicked to death by him/her but weren't. Dan56 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Dan56 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:, @Mike V:, you believe the evidence is weak, well explain the above, because no one has yet. How is any of this not enough to warrant CheckUser? The editor's first contribution after creating their account--around the time the other socks had been blocked--was to oppose a chance I had proposed, before opposing an FAC of mine claiming there were paraphrasing issues before trying to rewrite WP's policy on paraphrasing to justify their oppose. How is that not the least bit suspicious? Dan56 (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I'm okay with this investigation because I don't have anything to hide, except that I had one previous account that I used for a couple of weeks that I made the mistake of using my real name for. I would greatly appreciate it if the clerks would respect my desire to not get outed. Thanks. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as your legal name isn't "Jazzerino", that seems like a reasonable request. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not, but that was funny! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see why KWW didn't quick-block him as a sock per WP:DUCK. Most of these difs...aren't quite as strong as Dan56 seems to think. Maybe the checkuser will say otherwise, but this all sounds more like a case of it being possible, not probable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Kww, no my legal name isn't MariaJaydHicky or any variation thereof. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Rationalobserver shares a habit with the other socks of having an edit summary--no matter how small--for every one of their edits. Per Misplaced Pages:Contributing to Misplaced Pages#How to edit: "When you have finished editing, you should write a short edit summary in the small field below the edit-box describing your changes before you press the Save page button." Also, the welcome message I received less than 48 hours after I made my account says, "please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field." Rationalobserver (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V:, Edit summaries... for every minute change, grammar and prose revisions especially--characteristic of other socks -- "+1" (, , , , ), "+ nbsp" (, , , , , , ), "accuracy, clarity" (, , , , , , ), "add, syntax (, ), "spacing" (, , , ), "new section" (, , , , ), "full stop" (, , , ), "+ comma" (, , ), "compliance with LQ" (, ), "LQ" (, , , ), "better" (, ). Rationalobserver shares a habit with the other socks of having an edit summary--no matter how small--for every one of their edits, and the edit summaries resemble each other (, , , , ) Also, how is that evidence you're referring "stale" and how is that relevant? Dan56 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Those are all very vague, generic, and common edit summaries though. I'd hope someone wouldn't accuse me of being a sock just because I commonly use the edit summary "+ ref" or "rvv" like so many others around here do. Like earlier, your examples are numerous, but the actual evidence is rather weak. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sergecross73; I agree. In fact, Dan56 has used or does use many these same terms in his edit summaries; e.g., spacing, accuracy, clarity, LQ, better, syntax, + comma, and FTR, new section is an automatically generated edit summary. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No I haven't--unlike Sergecross73, I actually took a close look at those links and I've rarely used those exact summaries, and my behavior hasn't mirrored that of the socks. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've checked the difs...but every time, I find myself wondering "What am I looking at?" Wow, this editor adds hyphens or switches the placement of quotation marks and periods like these others. So do hundreds of other editors across my watchlist. And the rest of your arguments seem to hinge on the premise that the only way someone could oppose your FA work is if it were this one person socking again? You've diluted your argument with too many weak examples. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I think (some of?) the evidence in this case is pretty weak. Especially about the always-leaves-an-edit summary observation. As someone else pointed out, editors are actually supposed to leave edit summaries! And there's even a "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in the Preferences: Editing section!

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I'll go so far as to say probable, Sergecross73, but I certainly won't go so far as to say definite, which is where I have to be to block under WP:DUCK. As for the "previous account that I used for a couple of weeks that I made the mistake of using my real name for", there's always been a blur effect between Jazzerino and MariaJaydHicky, so if that's the name being discussed, we've still got a reason to block.—Kww(talk) 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Clerk declined The technical evidence for the other accounts is  Stale, so checkuser most likely won't help. This will need to be decided on behavioral evidence. I've briefly looked through what you have so far and I agree with Kww. The evidence suggests a possibility, but not to the level that I would be comfortable with issuing a block. @Dan56: Could you work on finding more behavioral evidence that compares Rationalobserver to past socks? This will certainly help in making a decision. Mike V • Talk 20:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dan56, to clarify I would have endorsed a check if it were possible. However, the technical data that Checkusers use to compare socks is no longer available. I looked many different edits from all of the accounts and found some similarities.

With my evidence, the evidence that Dan56 presented, and the similar contempt towards Dan56, it seems more than reasonable to conclude that RationalObserver is a sock of Jazzerino. Mike V • Talk 22:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting archive