Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzerino/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jazzerino

Jazzerino (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
03 August 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I have already blocked Jazzerino and MaximumEdison. This block was based on the long-running animosity between Jazzerino and Dan56 combined with the editing history at Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album), a conflict that spilled over onto my talk page. Today, I noticed Harmelodix as a third account. The overlap between Jazzerino and Harmelodix is fairly extensive, and the animosity between Harmelodix and Dan56 is also extensive, based on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56. Given that Jazzerino was previously blocked for socking in order to attack Dan56, I think there's a strong suspicion that Harmelodix is just another sock. However, since Harmelodix has managed to get an RFC/U certified against Dan56, I'm reluctant to issue a block without checkuser evidence to support it for fear that I will be seen as trying to disrupt an RFC/U in progress. —Kww(talk) 19:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD, I'm concerned here. There's a strong behavioural pattern, and I'm suspicious that we have a relatively skilled sockmaster. Certainly comparing Jazzerino to Annie Onymous and MaximumEdison is in order, and I would think that the previous check by Coren shouldn't block a check on Harmelodix vs. Maximum Edison and Annie Onymous, a check that hasn't been previously performed. As I said, even if you won't check Harmelodix again, please check the other two.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Blocked and tagged. Behaviour clinches any small uncertainty in the checkuser results.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I'm reopening this briefly because Jazzman49 is the oldest account and should therefore be the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jazzman49 is actually the oldest account (by a day) and should therefore be the master. However, after much discussion with the powers that be, I decided to leave the master as Jazzerino.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
06 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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 ([1]), seeing it all the way to what they felt was its end ([2]), 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 ([3], [4]) 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[ing] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia space, 30% to Wikipedia talk, and 3.4% to article space..." Dan56 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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)[reply]

As long as your legal name isn't "Jazzerino", that seems like a reasonable request. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, but that was funny! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Rationalobserver shares a habit with the other socks of having an edit summary--no matter how small--for every one of their edits. Per Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#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)[reply]

@Mike V:, Edit summaries... for every minute change, grammar and prose revisions especially--characteristic of other socks -- "+1" ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), "+ nbsp" ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), "accuracy, clarity" ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), "add, syntax ([24], [25]), "spacing" ([26], [27], [28], [29]), "new section" ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34]), "full stop" ([35], [36], [37], [38]), "+ comma" ([39], [40], [41]), "compliance with LQ" ([42], [43]), "LQ" ([44], [45], [46], [47]), "better" ([48], [49]). 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 ([50], [51], [52], [53], [54]) Also, how is that evidence you're referring "stale" and how is that relevant? Dan56 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wow. I think (some of?) the evidence in this case is pretty weak. Especially about the always-leaves-an-edit summary observation. As Rationalobserver pointed out, editors are actually supposed to leave edit summaries! There's even a "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in the Preferences: Editing section! And Sergecross73 makes a very good point that there are many abbreviated edit summaries that are commonly used by many editors.

Further, there are lots of real-life and Wikipedia writers and editors who are very particular - sometimes almost OCD-like - about correcting spelling and grammar. It's what good editors do!

And as for "frequent and consistent use of italics and quotes to emphasize points," that is also a very common WP editor habit. Hell, I just did it! Is someone going to say that I'm a sock of whomever RO is supposedly a sock of? Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence seems flimsy, circumstantial and dilute. By dilute I mean whatever somewhat convincing evidence is mixed in with piles of completely unconvincing evidence. I can think of several people who I don't think are sock puppets that I could probably produce better evidence for.
Plenty of time has been given for proper evidence to be produced. I don't think anything resembling actionable evidence has been presented. Chillum 00:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V, sorry to bother you again, but I hope to see some clarification made here regarding my unblock. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

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)[reply]

  •  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)[reply]
  • 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.
evidence

The individual demonstrates a strong understanding of grammar:

  • Jazzerino: 1, 2, 3
  • Flow Ridian: 1
  • Rationalobserver: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

There is a frequent and consistent use of italics and quotes to emphasize points:

  • RationalObserver: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  • Flow Ridian: 1, 2, 3, 4

The accounts show an uncanny familiarity with the Wikipedia's MOS:

  • Jazzarino: 1, 2
  • RationalObserver: 1, 2 (See page history for additional instances)

The accounts show a common interest in Wikignome activities:

  • Flow Ridian: 1, 2, 3, 4, ,5
  • Harmelodix" 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  • RationalObserver: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

I also noticed a similar tone and style of writing with the accounts:

  • Annie Onymous: 1
  • Flow Ridian: 1,
  • RationalObserver: 1, 2, 3, 4

Something I found interesting was this message by Annie Onymous, I'm not a sock of Jazzerino; I'm a neutral observer who has a right to an SPA that protects my privacy. A similar note was made by RationalObserver, 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.

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)[reply]

Well, my intuition was right, for like the nth time ! Thanks Mike V and Kww for your time and patience. Dan56 (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jazzerino/Archive&oldid=1076819665"