Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive

30 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * 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)
 * 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 - TP 02:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Response to None of these edits were to . Most were helpful points to, giving her various links to relevant pages of the WikiProjects/Guide pages, and even to a question Carolmooredc had asked about "disruptive editors" and answered by a project member. These links she later incorporated into GGTF project page and used in her comments in the arbcom. (Also, number of edits is a raw count, including correcting typos and formatting, adding to same comment, etc.)  EChastain (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please my post on 's talk explaining every post he listed in his diffs given above "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:" - I repeat not one had to do with Lightbreather. EChastain (talk) 23:12, 2 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEChastain&diff=634471988&oldid=634471681], so "duck test" evidenced that it's not a new user is meaningless. NE Ent 22:11, 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)
 * See Sock_puppetry 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)
 * 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)


 * For the record I disagree with the hatting and summary as this was a policy related discussion relevant to this investigation and in no way was it disruptive other then it questioned the basis of the hatting admin qualification of the SPI reasons. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence posted by Lightbreather on her talk (now hatted) and EChastain's responses
I posted this on 's talk, responding to her "behavioural evidence" that I'm a sock. She did not respond and it is hatted there with comment To be decided here so I'll copy/paste it here with my responses.

(Lightbreather): Considering EChastain's:
 * Account activity was opened on October 13, 2014 (the day after I announced that I was quitting);
 * Response My registration date: 20:23:09 12/10/2014. That's before you announced you were quitting. (Was I psychic?)


 * Declared background in psychology;
 * Response How is a doctorate in Psychology evidence that I'm a sockpuppet?


 * Early interest in the GGTF ArbCom (a case in which I presented evidence);
 * Response - how may editors were interested earlier than me?


 * Editing Robert Spitzer (one of nine consecutive edits) 11 days into her WP history;
 * Response - so what? What does that have to do with you?
 * Added response - Lightbreather is confusing Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) with another Robert Spitzer. Both Sue Rangell and Lightbreather extensively edited Robert Spitzer (political scientist). (Lightbreather has the most edits at 128, while Sue Rangell has 92, the second most edits of that article.) I edited Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist).


 * Comments at the GGTF ArbCom talk pages directed at me; ("massive freaking out"), ("massively disruptive")
 * Response Those comments were not directed at you, as I explained to you each time you posted on my talk.


 * Comments ("push a POV") and style/choice of words ("drop in the ocean") on her talk page;
 * Response "push a POV" and "drop in the ocean" in a response to a post of yours on my talk - how is that evidence I'm a sockpuppet?


 * Timing and style of her recent comments/edits on my talk page (She had never before edited my talk page);
 * Response - I posted to urge you just to address the reason for your unblock request, and not post other stuff, as the best way to get unblocked. I made a couple of added helpful hints, but then reversed myself twice when I saw you had already made the request. So that shows ... what? So trying to help you is bad? And makes me a sockpuppet?

Please explain how these relate. EChastain (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Also, Lightbreather posted six times on my talk on 25 November and 26 November. If you look at my actual edits to her on my talk and to her on her talk, you'll see that they were attempts to be helpful. Plus copy editing typos, and two "undo"s after I realized she had already posted her unblock request. EChastain (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comments in response to Lightbreather's added evidence that I'm a sockpuppet
 * Lightbreather has added that both Sue Rangell and EChastain have insisted other editors not post on her talkpage as evidence that I'm a sockpuppet:
 * 8. Insisting that other editors not post on her talk page (Details below)
 * "One of Sue Rangell's earliest and most emphatic requests of me was that I not post on her talk page.
 * Note EChastain insisting that another editor not post on her talk page.".
 * I did request EvergreenFir to not post on my talk page, for the reasons given here (Between 26 October 2014 and 1 December 2014, EvergreenFir posted 12 times, including one Warning that I may be blocked for reverting her revert, telling me to read WP:RS, WP:LEAD, BRD, WP:IDHT, WP:REFACTOR, WP:INDENT until  intervened and recommended she read WP:CIVIL. Her next post told me to read WP:FORUM, followed by a post with WP:HOUNDING, accusing me of following her to places I've not edited before but where she's already edited. Since I in no way singled her out and joined discussions on multiple pages or topics she may edit or multiple debates where she contributes in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit her work - or followed her from place to place on wikipedia, I asked her to please stop posting on my page.)
 * Lightbreather has added as evidence that I'm a sockpuppet because I used "sigh" in an edit summary:
 * 9. Use of "sigh" in edit summaries (Evidence below)
 * Evidence below: Both Sue Rangell[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=prev&oldid=572005842 and EChastain use "sigh" in edit summaries. (Yes, other editors insert this into comments, but not many that I've encountered.)] If Lightbreather had looked at the actual diff she would have seen that was the editor that used "sigh"  in her edit summary: (Undid revision 631653253 by EChastain (talk) see talk... sigh...) I quoted her in my response: (Undid revision 631672793 by EvergreenFir (talk) revert inaccuracy - see talk (sigh) - I've left a link to the article so you can read it for yourself). I've never used "sigh" in an edit summary, other than that quote of EvergreeFir's "sigh" as noted. EChastain (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ^That is correct. I was the one to use "sigh".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I think it is safe to say that this thing is blowing up into a bigger issue with more users being dragged here. The only thing I find a bit odd is the reasoning behind the removal of info-boxes on EChastain's userpage here, other than that I cant really say much else as I only tried to intervene between Evergreen and EChastain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record tons of users have P.H.D. info-boxes, so using the fact that she has a psychology degree is a very weak piece. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 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 []
 * Carolmooredc states editor is not Sue Rangel []
 * Tparis provides a link above, several actually, that deal with Carolmooredc and not Lightbreather. New Editor has editing nothing in Gun control subject area as well.




 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sue_Rangell&diff=636353649&oldid=636310799 First "original edit" posted by Gaijin42 copied from blocked user Lightbreather's talk on Dec 2]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sue_Rangell&diff=636402657&oldid=636397277 Second "original edit"posted by Gaijin42 on Dec 4 copied from Lightbreather's talk page completely replaces the first original edit, but not noted as such.]
 * Noting for sake of transparency, since the two separated posts by Gaijin42 are not documented (one completely replaces the other) and EChastain was never notified.

2. EChastain's declared background in psychology;
 * Details, per Lightbreather. Updated from first post by Gaijin42 for blocked editor
 * The first version of Sue Rangell's user page said, "she specializes in the fields of educational psychology and educational technology." (emphasis mine)

4. EChastain's editing Robert Spitzer (one of nine consecutive edits) 11 days into her WP history.
 * On January 12, 2014, Sue Rangell followed me to Robert Spitzer (political scientist) within an hour of my first edit there and proceeded to battle with me, the BLP subject, and other editors over the article for five days. After, she went on a mission to remove source citations to Spitzer in numerous articles, and returned to his article on July 31 to label him in the same way she was pushing in January.
 * Eleven days into her WP editing career, EChastain edited Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist). In light of the topic of one of her first 12 edits strongly suggests this is more than a coincidence. (Again, if whomever is conducting the SPI contacts me privately, I will give more details - but I cannot do do here.)
 * On January 25, 2014, during the long Robert Spitzer (political scientist) dispute, Sue Rangell moved all but the first sentence of Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) lead into a new first section titled "New York City."
 * When EChastain edited Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist), her first four edits were to the lead and the "New York City" section.

6. Is related to this comment by EChastain at the GGTF ArbCom: "I think most editors posting here or on GGTF are 'a good person' (e.g.Lightbreather). But that doesn't mean they can't be massively disruptive on wikipedia, or that they have the competence required."
 * I felt that including my name in the statement looked like she considered me "massively disruptive" or incompetent. (I mean, would her comment have lost any meaning if she'd left out the parenthetical? Why include my name?) So I asked her privately if she would refactor the comment, which she would not do. In the discussion - on her talk page, Request, please - she gave her explanation using language that was very typical of Sue Rangell when she wasn't being openly accusatory, and added "[taking] the remarks of others too personally," and POV pushing to the list of things that she did "not" say about me. (POV pushing, especially "civil POV pushing," was one of Sue Rangell's repeated allegations against me, rarely with evidence. Also, Sue Rangle was prone to exaggeration. It wasn't enough to say someone was disruptive; they would be characterized as things like "massively" disruptive.) Examples of Sue Rangell style (CAPS), tone, exaggerating, "not" saying things.

7. EChastain's timing and style in her recent comments here on my talk page.
 * I was notified by an admin of my block at 08:26, 30 November 2014. I pinged the notifying admin, asking a question. The first person to "respond," 90 minutes later, was editor EChastain, with a link to the Guide to appealing blocks (which was already in the notice, so it was offering nothing new in the way of helpful information, or the answer to my specific question (that I could see, anyway). And she ended with the comment, "I do so wish you'd taken my advice given when you posted on my talk."
 * Soon after, she added a snarky opening comment, plus a "suggestion" that I read the Five pillars!
 * Six minutes later she added "Please, please" to the beginning of the sentence that told me what I should read, plus a warning.
 * Five minutes later, she deleted what she'd just added.
 * In the next minute, she deleted the snarky opening like she'd added 12 minutes earlier.

8. One of Sue Rangell's earliest and most emphatic requests of me was that I not post on her talk page.
 * Note EChastain insisting that another editor not post on her talk page.

9. Both Sue Rangell and EChastain use "sigh" in edit summaries. (Yes, other editors insert this into comments, but not many that I've encountered.) 


 * Further comment by the accused:
 * has a clear agenda for some reason against me.
 * First TParis notes a list of diffs that show my interactions with Lightbreather with edit summary: "***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" - None of these show any interaction with Lightbreather.
 * TParis states: 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. This assumes I have a master account and I'm attempting to evade scrutiny. TParis assumes guilt until proven innocent. It this the way it's done here?

This has been open since November 30, and all Lightbreather and defenders have shown is that Lightbreather has a clear agenda to get Sue Rangell at whatever cost. I have nothing to do with this. EChastain (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What possible reason could I have for going after you? Any evidence from prior to this SPI?  Or do you use this SPI as evidence itself of having an agenda against you thus opening the SPI?  Please do not waste anyone's times with ad hominems.--v/r - TP 22:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have no idea. You tell me. That you clearly have a bias against me on the basis of zero evidence is surprising. Is this because I dared to participate in the arbcom? Or what? None of your diffs that you said "I hope this settles the matter as there were plenty and easy to find" had anything to do with Lightbreather. Even though Lightbreather accused you of nine points on your talk - A heartfelt request and you disproved all but one insignificant one, so you know she's irresponsible on her accusations. But how can you be so irresponsible in yours? EChastain (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that you have no support for the accusation that I have a motive. Now, please strike the accusation.--v/r - TP 00:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Unfortunately, Sue Rangell is . Rschen7754 20:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * with no further action. Lightbreather was blocked recently for sock puppetry, so I don't feel like we ought to put a lot of weight on this report.  It is possible the reported accounts are related, but I don't see anything solid enough to warrant a block, and the arbitration case, locus of alleged disruption, has now closed.  It will be better for Wikipedia if people move along, and if EC and Lightbreather try to avoid each other, since they don't seem to get along. Jehochman Talk 18:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

18 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

In addition to evidence presented in her archived SPI:

1. In January 2014, Sue Rangell made 90 edits to Robert Spitzer (political scientist) (an article she followed me to and fought with me over) 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 EChastain 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 - and done, notably her first edit as EChastain - 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 Wikipedia is mere coincidence. Lightbreather (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo and others: Only part of 1. above was presented and discussed before, and 2. and 3. are new. Lightbreather (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: A checkuser wasn't run because the user name Sue Rangell was stale. It was suggested that if EChastain was a WP:CLEANSTART account it was probably a misuse of a clean start. Other editors saw merit in pursuing an SPI and provided evidence here, but I was blocked at the time and could not present evidence myself. A behavioral analysis was considered but not pursued deeply (in part because of my block at the time).

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Wasn't this case closed last week? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The archive shows that this evidence was presented and the case closed on Dec. 8th. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this closed as stale? So what does an extra two weeks accomplish, regardless of the evidence? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm sorry but the evidence that has been presented does not establish a strong behavioral link. I'm closing this case with no action taken. Mike V  •  Talk  03:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)