| Revision as of 22:11, 30 November 2014 editNE Ent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors20,713 edits →Comments by other users: not a new account← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:13, 30 November 2014 edit undoTParis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators30,347 edits →Comments by other users: ::See Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts where it discusses clean starts. ECastain's Arbcom participation without revealing their master account is an attempt to evade scrutiny. There areNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :] doesn't actually prohibit returning to older edit areas it suggests it isn't smart to do so because the link will be made. A couple questions are we saying this person quit in august to start editing again as a sock just for the arbcom case? On what basis or threshold would we look at as evasion of scrutiny just to participate in this case? I'm asking because of the differences in blocks here and how they are related policy wise? The evidence is actually there to at least say it's not a new editor and the evidence can be suggestive that it is indeed Sue Rangel but I'm curious was she evading sanctions? Has she commented with both accounts in some way with this dispute? I note they haven't denied it yet either so maybe it's a cleanstart account that is caught and no idea how to proceed. ] (]) 21:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | :] doesn't actually prohibit returning to older edit areas it suggests it isn't smart to do so because the link will be made. A couple questions are we saying this person quit in august to start editing again as a sock just for the arbcom case? On what basis or threshold would we look at as evasion of scrutiny just to participate in this case? I'm asking because of the differences in blocks here and how they are related policy wise? The evidence is actually there to at least say it's not a new editor and the evidence can be suggestive that it is indeed Sue Rangel but I'm curious was she evading sanctions? Has she commented with both accounts in some way with this dispute? I note they haven't denied it yet either so maybe it's a cleanstart account that is caught and no idea how to proceed. ] (]) 21:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Editor has explicitly stated they are not a new editor , so "duck test" evidenced that it's not a new user is meaningless. <small>]</small> 22:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | Editor has explicitly stated they are not a new editor , so "duck test" evidenced that it's not a new user is meaningless. <small>]</small> 22:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::See ] where it discusses clean starts. ECastain's Arbcom participation without revealing their master account is an attempt to evade scrutiny. There are a number of other items in that list that ECastain is also in violation of.--v/r - ]] 22:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | ||
Revision as of 22:13, 30 November 2014
Sue Rangell
Sue Rangell (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive.
30 November 2014
– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.
- Suspected sockpuppets
- EChastain (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
- User meets the duck test as second edit was to blue link their user page
- First 12 edits were to achieve autoconfirmed status and waited approx 9 days
- 13th edit was to a semi-protected page
- 13th edit was to pursue disputes with User:Lightbreather and User:Carolmooredc which the user has not encountered on this account before that point. Sue Rangell was in disputes with these two editors over gun control.
- EChastain claims to have a doctorate in psychology, Sue Rangell claims to be a sociologist.
- Sue Rangell stopped editing 14 August 2014. If EChatain is a clean start then it fails WP:Clean start: "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." v/r - TP 20:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754: Well that's disappointing, I had hoped that August was recent enough for a checkuser. User:Carolmooredc and User:Lightbreather have more evidence to add on the subject, perhaps that'll be enough to make this decision on behavioral evidence alone.--v/r - TP 20:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users
seems like it's all in order.. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- WP:Cleanstart doesn't actually prohibit returning to older edit areas it suggests it isn't smart to do so because the link will be made. A couple questions are we saying this person quit in august to start editing again as a sock just for the arbcom case? On what basis or threshold would we look at as evasion of scrutiny just to participate in this case? I'm asking because of the differences in blocks here and how they are related policy wise? The evidence is actually there to at least say it's not a new editor and the evidence can be suggestive that it is indeed Sue Rangel but I'm curious was she evading sanctions? Has she commented with both accounts in some way with this dispute? I note they haven't denied it yet either so maybe it's a cleanstart account that is caught and no idea how to proceed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Editor has explicitly stated they are not a new editor , so "duck test" evidenced that it's not a new user is meaningless. NE Ent 22:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts where it discusses clean starts. ECastain's Arbcom participation without revealing their master account is an attempt to evade scrutiny. There are a number of other items in that list that ECastain is also in violation of.--v/r - TP 22:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Clerk declined - Unfortunately, Sue Rangell is 
Stale. Rschen7754 20:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Categories: