| Revision as of 03:57, 18 December 2014 editLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:03, 18 December 2014 edit undoLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →18 December 2014: punc, linkNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| 2. In July 2014, Sue Rangell received a warning, with these related comments: | 2. In July 2014, Sue Rangell received a warning, with these related comments: | ||
| *''I see a higher-than-acceptable level of personal animosity in the edits by Sue Rangell in evidence, and I would warn Sue Rangell that she may be made subject to sanctions if she continues to focus on contributors rather than content in this manner'' ] | *''I see a higher-than-acceptable level of personal animosity in the edits by Sue Rangell in evidence, and I would warn Sue Rangell that she may be made subject to sanctions if she continues to focus on contributors rather than content in this manner.'' ] | ||
| *''I would warn Sue Rangell as Sandstein suggests'' ] | *''I would warn Sue Rangell as Sandstein suggests.'' ] | ||
| *''I find some of Sue Rangell's comments disturbing'' ] | *''I find some of Sue Rangell's comments disturbing.'' ] | ||
| Having received this warning, it would have been nearly impossible for Sue Rangell to comment at the GGTF ArbCom, or on my talk page (where ''she was first to show up'' after my recent block), without risking sanctions for focusing on contributors rather than content. | Having received this warning, it would have been nearly impossible for Sue Rangell to comment at the GGTF ArbCom, or on my talk page (where ''she was first to show up'' after my recent block), without risking sanctions for focusing on contributors rather than content. | ||
| 3. And finally, in October 2014, EChastain's ''first article'' edit was to an article that Sue Rangell knows I have a very personal connection to. (She knows because early in my active WP editing career, I found myself under attack - possibly ] - on an article talk page. I reached out to a few uninvolved editors to see if one would volunteer to help to cool things down. The first one to respond was Sue Rangell, but she didn't cool things down. She joined the gang. In desperation, I sent her an email. However, at that time - naively - I had associated my WP account with an email address that was not dedicated to WP business, and it's obvious from things she's said to me since then that she used my email address to research my real-life identity.) | 3. And finally, in October 2014, EChastain's ''first article'' edit was to an article that Sue Rangell knows I have a very personal connection to. (She knows because early in my active WP editing career, I found myself under attack - possibly ] - on an article talk page. I reached out to a few uninvolved editors to see if one would volunteer to help to cool things down. The first one to respond was Sue Rangell, but she didn't cool things down. She joined the gang. In desperation, I sent her an email. However, at that time - naively - I had associated my WP account with an email address that was not dedicated to WP business, and it's obvious from things she's said to me since then that she used my email address to research my real-life identity.) | ||
| ''It is very unlikely that Sue Rangell's and EChastain's choosing to edit these three articles - the two Robert Spitzers, plus the one place - ''out of 4.6 million articles in the English Misplaced Pages'' is mere coincidence.'' ] (]) 03:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC) | ''It is very unlikely that Sue Rangell's and EChastain's choosing to edit these three articles - the two Robert Spitzers, plus the one place - ''out of 4.6 million articles in the English Misplaced Pages'' is mere coincidence.'' ] (]) 03:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:03, 18 December 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.
18 December 2014
– This SPI case is open.
- 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
1. In January 2014, Sue Rangell made 90 edits to Robert Spitzer (political scientist) and 1 edit to Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist). Although EChastain did not edit the former article, she made 9 edits to the latter that are obvious extensions of the edit Sue Rangell made to that article.
2. In July 2014, Sue Rangell received a warning, with these related comments:
- I see a higher-than-acceptable level of personal animosity in the edits by Sue Rangell in evidence, and I would warn Sue Rangell that she may be made subject to sanctions if she continues to focus on contributors rather than content in this manner. Sandstein
- I would warn Sue Rangell as Sandstein suggests. Lord Roem
- I find some of Sue Rangell's comments disturbing. EdJohnston
Having received this warning, it would have been nearly impossible for Sue Rangell to comment at the GGTF ArbCom, or on my talk page (where she was first to show up after my recent block), without risking sanctions for focusing on contributors rather than content.
3. And finally, in October 2014, EChastain's first article edit was to an article that Sue Rangell knows I have a very personal connection to. (She knows because early in my active WP editing career, I found myself under attack - possibly tag-teamed - on an article talk page. I reached out to a few uninvolved editors to see if one would volunteer to help to cool things down. The first one to respond was Sue Rangell, but she didn't cool things down. She joined the gang. In desperation, I sent her an email. However, at that time - naively - I had associated my WP account with an email address that was not dedicated to WP business, and it's obvious from things she's said to me since then that she used my email address to research my real-life identity.)
It is very unlikely that Sue Rangell's and EChastain's choosing to edit these three articles - the two Robert Spitzers, plus the one place - out of 4.6 million articles in the English Misplaced Pages is mere coincidence. Lightbreather (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories: