Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:28, 4 April 2014

Askahrc

Askahrc (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/Askahrc/Archive.

03 April 2014

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• The username of the suspected sock has been suppressed. The admin reviewing this SPI needs to have oversight power.

• On March 12th Deepak Chopra complained about a death threat in the Ralph Abraham article.

• There are two revdeleted edits from 71.119.92.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on March 8th in the article history. Since those edits were immediately reverted by ClueBot, and since there are no visible threats in the recent article history, the death threat mentioned by Chopra must have been oversighted (as opposed to revdeleted).

• The revdeletes from 71.119.92.56 were for WP:RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material.

• Therefore it is possible that 71.119.92.56's edits and the suppressed edits are related. This SPI connects 71.119.92.56 to Askahrc.

• Askahrc has been strongly promoting a warfare mentality on Misplaced Pages. Most recently he has taken to writing WP:POLEMICs on his talk page, for instance comparing a revolver to a recent ANI that he initiated.

• In order to fabricate evidence supporting his agenda, Askahrc had previously harassed and bullied users through an IP sockpuppet, acting as if he was on "the other side" in his warfare model. He then submitted an arbcom request about the bullying.

• More of Askahrc's deceptions and battleground behavior are outlined in the past AE request on him, which was tabled due to the lack of recent activity from Askahrc. For instance in the ANI that he brought (the one he called a revolver), Askahrc cited comments from his own IP sockpuppet as evidence against others.

• The IP address behind which Askahrc harassed and threatened editors is located at the University of California, Long Beach. 71.119.92.56 is also at Long Beach, California, in fact it is right next to the University of California (via longitude/latitude in that link).

• Since October Askahrc has been focused on the Rupert Sheldrake article. Sheldrake is a colleague of Ralph Abraham, with whom Sheldrake recorded a long series of dialogues.

• 2 hours 45 minutes after Askahrc's last edit on March 8th, 71.119.92.56 vandalizes the Abraham article.

• March 8th is the only time 71.119.92.56 has been active, and 71.119.92.56 only edited the Abraham article. Askahrc was inactive for 4 days prior to March 8th and 3 days after March 8th. Askahrc is generally not an active editor. So the one time when 71.119.92.56 is active coincides with Askahrc's brief activity amid a period of inactivity.

• Immediately prior to 71.119.92.56's vandalism, Askahrc had been complaining about the SPI and AE against him. By adding threats to the biography of Sheldrake's colleague, Askahrc was bolstering his warfare idea that there is a cabal of mean Wikipedians out to attack Sheldrake and anyone sympathetic to him. See for example the polemics on his talk page.

• This is the same situation surrounding Askahrc's last bout of sockpuppetry, in which Askahrc had been upset that a sockpuppet of Tumbleman had been blocked, and complained that people were being harassed and wrongly persecuted. Askahrc expressed great concern about it, then took action in the form of deceptive sockpuppetry in order to prove his point, playing the role of an off-the-rails antagonistic user through his sock.

• At least two admins have explicitly expressed concern about Askahrc's deceptive behavior.

• An admin reviewing this needs to look at the suppressed edits in the Abraham article. If the suppressed edits were from a registered user, then the evidence provided should be sufficient to warrant a checkuser on the vandal. (I can't name the vandal because the edits are suppressed, not simply revdeleted.)

-- vzaak 21:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

@Deskana: that's odd. Deepak Chopra links to the current article on March 12th, not a past revision. Others replied on Twitter, confirming the vandalism. There was a blog post about it, with screenshot. Are 71.119.92.56's revdeled edits in the screenshot? But 71.119.92.56's edits were immediately reverted, so they can't be what Chopra is talking about. vzaak 22:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Another, independent screenshot from March 12th:. vzaak 23:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Alison or Deskana -- are you allowed to tell me whether or not the revdeled content matches this screenshot? vzaak 23:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not oversighted information and is visible to all admins, so I'll say - yes, it matches - Alison 23:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So the screenshot is either doctored or it was taken by the vandal himself, seconds before the vandalism was reverted by ClueBot? And we have two different screenshots posted on March 12th, four days after the vandalism happened. And Askahrc just now got one of his IP addresses oversighted, removing a piece of evidence, though it was already included in my email to the functionaries mailing list. Can I mention the Internet provider and location of the newly suppressed IP? Its importance didn't occur to me until it became suppressed. I don't believe oversight is intended for evading scrutiny. (BTW Askahrc is on a low bar for the next disruption.)

Whatever the outcome, this is amazing! Deepak Chopra was fooled by a troll (or, less likely, was in on it). vzaak 00:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is overly harsh. Does sock puppeting rules include editing on an IP while one is logged out? I thought having alternate accounts was not forbidden unless they were used covertly. It is no secert that vzaak has brought charges against Askahrc in the past and it is notable that Askahrc led a successful ARE case against one of Vzaak's supporters on Wednesday. This investigation seems like payback.

If it is indeed true that there has been some unexplainable socking, I bow to the checkusers' expertise. But I think there needs to be solid proof and that just can't be evidence of having an unpopular opinion. Liz 02:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Liz, yes I am the one who who submitted evidence for the previous SPI, which closed with the finding that Askahrc had been harassing users behind an IP sockpuppet. Much of the evidence in this SPI was submitted weeks ago to the functionaries mailing list. The response I eventually received indicated some confusion, and if you follow the investigation here, you'll see why. As you can see from my contributions, I haven't been active on WP for a while. Please redact your WP:ASPERSIONS toward me, and please refrain from adding other commentary that is not relevant to this SPI, thank you. vzaak 03:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Since this SPI was meant to be a CU request for the hypothetical suppressed edit(s), I am removing the curequest flag. This SPI was obviously not intended to be a behavioral analysis of 71.119.92.56, though there happens to be a reasonable amount of evidence regarding timing, location, motivation, past behavior, and more, which admins could still act upon. Otherwise there is not much to do here. If anyone is interested I have commented on the very peculiar technical aspect of the situation at the pump. vzaak 08:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm out of town visiting family right now, so I respectfully ask the admins to wait a couple of days before deciding so I can get home and spend some time reviewing exactly what I'm being accused of. All I know is that I've never heard of any of the people referenced (other than Deepak Chopra), I'm active most days on WP and other than today (when I'm writing from Nevada) I have only used one computer and one IP to edit for months. I have absolutely nothing to hide, please run as thorough a checkuser as you can against whoever made this death threat. I do not and have never countenanced that sort of vile behavior, as I mentioned to vzaak when I redacted the material in my fiction when he was upset by it.

I have not logged in under anything other than my username (except for one accidental update on my talkpage when I was logged out, which I corrected), I am not and use no sockpuppets. I do consider it intriguing that this SPI was launched the day after an AE concerning two acquaintances of vzaak resulted in a temporary block for harassment and uncivil behavior, during the course of which the blockee insisted that I should be boomeranged and blocked.

As I said, I won't be at a computer for the next two days, so please don't decide anything until I can go over these incidents. I again reiterate that I have absolutely nothing to hide and nothing to do with any of this, so go to town with Checkuser reports or any other sort of evidence for this incident (other than the vague assertions vzaak describes as evidence). The Cap'n (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alison: Just to clarify the motivating evidence, 71.119.92.56 is in fact in Long Beach, Askahrc previously used an IP sockpuppet from Long Beach, Askahrc has said that he lives in Long Beach, and Askahrc has used another IP near Long Beach. I probably can't say if that last IP is same as the suppressed one, but you know the answer to that. I'm not trying to make a case that this peculiar SPI -- which really only exists because of a WMF caching bug -- is actionable, I'm just stating for the record that the geolocation is a match. vzaak 19:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Look, I don't want to go into too much detail here. We have a clear policy relating to release of IP information here, and I'm not willing to just dish out IPs and geographic information just like that. The editor in question has been in a number of diverse locations, for starters. Secondly, the user agent that this editor uses is pretty consistent across locations, yet is radically different to the one used for the vandalistic edits. I don't want to say more than that, but it's not as clear as you portray above - Alison 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alison, I'm not asking you to dish anything, in fact I am shocked that you are discussing IP checkuser information, considering the policies on that. I removed the curequest flag because the target shifted from hypothetical suppressed edit(s) to a known IP. Geolocation of an IP is 100% public information, and I'm simply stating, for the record, that "geographically located elsewhere" is not a fair assessment here. If the geolocation did not match then I would not have submitted the SPI; I didn't get that part wrong. vzaak 20:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• As a significant subset of checkusers have oversight rights, I have extraordinarily tagged this request as requiring checkuser attention in spite of the fact that it doesn't require a checkuser. That increases the chances that someone with oversight will review the case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• @Vzaak: I looked at the Ralph Abraham article, and there are no suppressed edits on that page. The suppression log confirms that no edit to that page has ever been suppressed. Are you sure? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• What Deskana said. I'm seeing two revdel'd edits but nothing whatsoever is in the suppression logs for that page. When I checked earlier, I though it was just me - Alison 23:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• This case needs to be dealt with, so checking per comments above. I can say that Askahrc (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to the IP mentioned above and is geographically located elsewhere - Alison 19:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting archive