Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11/Archive

Evidence submitted by Codf1977
I think that has been using IP's to avoid blocks on the grounds of WP:3RR and to be disruptive. All the IP addresses first edits in 2010 are to articles that Rangoon11 has edited first. Two of them 92.29.114.41 and 92.24.190.146 have been blocked for disruptive edits.

I first came across UCL Institute of Neurology on 20 Sept 2010 while new page patrolling, as it seemed not to meet Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines I tagged it with this edit. Then the IP (92.29.114.41) came along and wared over the tag (no other editors other than the IP, Rangoon11 and myself have edited this article), later getting blocked for disruptive editing after making edits on Talk:Matthew Yusuf Smith. Then 92.15.3.97 made similar edits to Talk:UCL Institute of Neurology both were also a violation of WP:OUTING. Then there is this edit where Rangoon11 says "and since you [Codf1977] posted a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities accusing me [Rangoon11] (wrongly) of edit warring" - the post in question clearly show I said "IP editor is waring off the tag" further lends support to the fact Rangoon11 is editing using the above IP's

Then comes edits to University College London and King's College London made on 5 October, both 92.24.190.146 and Rangoon11 editing from the same point of view with almost very similar edit summaries such as "deletion of cited facts" These IP's have been used to avoid blocks relating to WP:3RR and, if they are related, then Rangoon11 evaded a block on 92.29.114.41 (see Rangoon11 contributions on 21 Sept) for that reason I believe a CheckUser is appropriate.

I need to disclose the fact that I was the reason for Rangoon11's block for Legal threats he made here, which he did retract less than an hour later and was subsequently unblocked for. Codf1977 (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, I believe and  are also Rangoon11 given the edit style and articles edited and the fact they are the same ISP's as the other IP's, however in the case of these there are no disruptive edits. Codf1977 (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Codf1977 has been consistently harrassing me and this is yet a futher episode. They have been attacking pages which they have seen that I have edited, have been trying to provoke, have posted numerous warnings and other messages on my talk page, have posted messages accusing me of edit warring here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, been agressive and unconstructive here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities and have generally been stalking me.

On UCL Institute of Neurology they engaged in a protracted and non-constructive effort to redirect the article on grounds on non-notability despite the weight of evidence to the contrary.

They have made edits to the following pages after looking at my edit history and following me there:


 * University College London
 * The Guildhall
 * PwC
 * UCL Institute of Child Health

I believe that all of these edits have been of a hostile nature intended either to provoke or to waste my time or both. Yesterday Codf1977 posted a maintanence tag on University College London having made no prior edits to the article and having made no attempt to engage in discussion purely in an attempt to provoke.

I did not make a legal threat to Codf1977, I merely attempted to make them aware that their behaviour amounted to harrassment. Even despite that their behaviour continues! I am really not sure what to do apart from leave this account, which is grossly unfair but in the end life is too short to waste time fighting unpleasant individuals like this on Wikipedia!Rangoon11 (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I make no apology for viewing the contributions of an editor whose edits I have concern over, it is common practice on WP. However you did not address the issue that this relates to - that the IP's have been engaged in disruptive actions on WP (two of them have been blocked as such) and that I believe there is a link between their actions and the actions of your account. My mention of the Legal Threats block was to ensure that transparency existed as far as I am concerned that mater was over yesterday when you withdrew the threat. Codf1977 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
There's been developments since the case was opened, namely has started editing (I've added them to the suspected list), and I think a checkuser here is warranted. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, no. There's no need for checkuser, because . It's a remarkably stupid duck, given that this SPI was still open, but there's no need to go through technical data when the connection is obvious and there is no evidence that sleepers would be around. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Declining - checkuser will not publicly link IPs with named accounts. TN X Man 13:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on behavioral evidence, I am blocking all accounts and IPs named above; the IPs each for one week, for three months, and  indefinitely. I was considering only a month for Rangoon, but given the questionable wisdom of creating a sock during an open investigation, attempting to out others while logged out, AND the recent block for legal threats, the longer duration seemed more appropriate. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am prepared to unblock Rangoon, if he will promise to use only a single account. I think his activities have to some degree arisen out of frustration to the attscks on him here, as is not uncommon. Of course, he certainly dealt with them wrong, but he can be a valued contributor and with proper assistance could be much more valuable-- and   might not have needed  to do what he did with more active encouragement. Further I feel a little unhappily responsible  myself, because he works in my field of interest and I failed to notice the problem.    DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now done so.   DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

10 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Thousands of edits in short period of time. Suspect multiple users of same account. Many edits to articles about businesses changing criticisms to 'corporate social responsibility' or whatever. Vorpaul (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2011 (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

 * Did I miss something? Are you accusing the account of being itself? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, fine. Closing with no action taken. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

13 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Edit history at article BP, eg and opinion of Blocking Admins, eg User:MastCell. Mais oui! (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2013 (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

 * Looks clear that these are all Rangoon11. All geolocate to the same place, and all are dynamic IPs used in the same article on successive days, continuing Rangoon11's arguments (such as the article being an "attack piece" due to the emphasis on controversy ). The two latest addresses have already been blocked, and there's no use blocking the oldest one anymore since it's dynamic and they've already changed IP a couple of times after that. Rangoon11 has been indeffed by MastCell. Nothing more to do here. Jafeluv (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)