Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell

< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TParis (talk | contribs) at 02:00, 1 December 2014 (→30 November 2014: ***Per Hell in a Bucket's insistence that I find the exact edits, here are all the ones dealing with Carolmooredc and Lightbreather - I hope this settles the matter as there were plenty and easy to find: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:00, 1 December 2014 by TParis (talk | contribs) (→30 November 2014: ***Per Hell in a Bucket's insistence that I find the exact edits, here are all the ones dealing with Carolmooredc and Lightbreather - I hope this settles the matter as there were plenty and easy to find: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)
  - Per Hell in a Bucket's insistence that I find the exact edits, here are all the ones dealing with Carolmooredc and Lightbreather - I hope this settles the matter as there were plenty and easy to find: . There are more, but I think I made my point.--v/r - T P 02:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

seems like it's all in order.. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:41, 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)

Uninvolved administrators and checkusers know what WP:Clean start says, they don't need anyone Wikilawyering it disruptively.--v/r - T P 01:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 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 - T P 22:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC) What consequences are they evading? They weren't evading established sanctions and they have actually edited content on this account before and after their participation at the arbcom. They have not admitted any other accounts, they admit being here a while. Cleanstart it just states "However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized and connected to the old account. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may lead to additional sanctions. Whether a new account is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny is determined by the behavior of the new account. A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." So what sanctions are they evading or consequences, at the very least it's a person that just made the mistake of enough info to link them to their old account. Help explain please what the violation is so it's clear, I'm genuinely asking because it's complicated and I'd like understand. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC) One point I readily concede is the sheer number of edits to the page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Like I stated here: In its lead, for reasons that it notes, WP:Clean start currently prohibits that a returning editor with a new account returns to the same editing space. It's looser with that language lower on the page, but it should be consistent with it; and I mean consistent with the "don't return to the same area" aspect, unless, of course, the problematic behavior, if there was any, has truly improved and it is valid for that editor to return to the same editing area that he or she edited before. WP:Clean start is clear that the clean start is supposed to be an actual clean start. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC) User:Flyer22, the full sentence states " Whether a new account is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny is determined by the behavior of the new account. " the question then becomes has the editor been invovled with inappropriate behaviors? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I was more so focusing on the part that states: "The old account must be clearly discontinued, and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. 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." I stand by that part of the policy. And the reason I linked to how the lead is currently formatted is in the case that someone heads on over to that policy and changes or contests the lead because of this case or a different case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators and checkusers know what WP:Clean start says, they don't need anyone Wikilawyering it disruptively.--v/r - T P 01:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

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 - T P 22:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What consequences are they evading? They weren't evading established sanctions and they have actually edited content on this account before and after their participation at the arbcom. They have not admitted any other accounts, they admit being here a while. Cleanstart it just states "However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized and connected to the old account. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may lead to additional sanctions. Whether a new account is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny is determined by the behavior of the new account. A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." So what sanctions are they evading or consequences, at the very least it's a person that just made the mistake of enough info to link them to their old account. Help explain please what the violation is so it's clear, I'm genuinely asking because it's complicated and I'd like understand. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

One point I readily concede is the sheer number of edits to the page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated here: In its lead, for reasons that it notes, WP:Clean start currently prohibits that a returning editor with a new account returns to the same editing space. It's looser with that language lower on the page, but it should be consistent with it; and I mean consistent with the "don't return to the same area" aspect, unless, of course, the problematic behavior, if there was any, has truly improved and it is valid for that editor to return to the same editing area that he or she edited before. WP:Clean start is clear that the clean start is supposed to be an actual clean start. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Flyer22, the full sentence states " Whether a new account is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny is determined by the behavior of the new account. " the question then becomes has the editor been invovled with inappropriate behaviors? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I was more so focusing on the part that states: "The old account must be clearly discontinued, and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. 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." I stand by that part of the policy. And the reason I linked to how the lead is currently formatted is in the case that someone heads on over to that policy and changes or contests the lead because of this case or a different case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence

Part of the overlap was Robert Spitzer, at least for me and then I took a second look Sue edited ] a political scientist of the same name as ] a psychiatrist edited by the newer account. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

] Comment was to Neotarf not Carolmnooredc or LB.
38 edits to Proposed decision]
3 edits on one post at ] GGTF ARB EVIDENCE
Editor has close to 400 if not slightly more edits total so 41 out of 400 edits doesn't show this as a SPA with the sole intention of misusing a clean start. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
These are reasonable answers ]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk declined - Unfortunately, Sue Rangell is Stale. Rs chen 7754 20:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories: