Content deleted Content added
Tag as requiring checkuser... although it doesn't. |
reply to Vzaak |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
||
*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. --[[User talk:Deskana|(ʞɿɐʇ)]] [[User:Deskana| ɐuɐʞsǝp]] 22:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC) |
*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. --[[User talk:Deskana|(ʞɿɐʇ)]] [[User:Deskana| ɐuɐʞsǝp]] 22:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
*{{ping|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? --[[User talk:Deskana|(ʞɿɐʇ)]] [[User:Deskana| ɐuɐʞsǝp]] 22:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
Revision as of 22:42, 3 April 2014
Askahrc
- Askahrc (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc/Archive.
03 April 2014
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
- 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.[1]
- 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.[2] 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.[3]
- 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 Wikipedia. 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.[4]
- 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.[5][6] He then submitted an arbcom request about the bullying.[7]
- 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.[8]
- The IP address behind which Askahrc harassed and threatened editors is located at the University of California, Long Beach.[9][10] 71.119.92.56 is also at Long Beach, California,[11] in fact it is right next to the University of California (via longitude/latitude in that link).[12]
- 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.[13]
- 2 hours 45 minutes after Askahrc's last edit on March 8th, 71.119.92.56 vandalizes the Abraham article.[14][15]
- 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.[16] 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.[17][18] 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.[19][20][21]
- 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.[22]
- 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.
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)