Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive.

18 December 2014

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

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

In addition to evidence presented in her archived SPI:

1. In January 2014, Sue Rangell made 90 edits to Robert Spitzer (political scientist) [1] (an article she followed me to and fought with me over) and 1 edit to Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist).[2] Although EChastain did not edit the former article, she made 9 edits to the latter [3] that are obvious extensions of the edit Sue Rangell made to that article.

2. In July 2014, Sue Rangell received a warning[4], 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 [5] 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 [6] 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

•  Clerk note: 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)

---