Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc/Archive.

16 February 2014

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 134.139.22.141 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

• 134.139.22.141 is located at California State University, Long Beach. Askahrc states on his user page that his school is California State University, Long Beach, and that he lives in Long Beach.[1]

• Askahrc is seeking to shake things up after Tumbleman's block, which Askahrc believes was wrong. Askahrc has been in contact with Tumbleman since his block, and has recently been promoting Tumbleman's story around Wikipedia.[2][3][4][5]

• By issuing threats under the disguise of 134.139.22.141, Askahrc was trumping up the "bullying" evidence for his arbcom case, "Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors", in which these threats were the focus. Indeed the case begins, "This request for arbitration is to resolve recurring threats..."[6] The case was submitted 29 Nov; we begin with the lead-up.

• 22 Nov

• Initiating a new thread, Askahrc submits a long post to Talk:Rupert Sheldrake.[7]

• 30 minutes later, 134.139.22.141 trolls Askahrc's talk page with a discretionary sanctions warning, saying, "This is a warning: Please note that your contributions are disruptive and if they continue on the Rupert Sheldrake page you will face blocking or banning. You wouldn't be the first."[8]

• 9 minutes later, Askahrc reverts TRPoD's removal of the troll's comment in order to "keep an eye out for this person".[9]

• 25 Nov

• Referring to the spate of DS warnings that were handed out to those editing the Sheldrake article, Askahrc says, "I don't like the idea of anyone getting arbitrary threats. I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the way banning/blocking warnings are being tossed around. I received the equivalent of a "we don't like yer kind 'round here" warning about the Sheldrake page myself".[10] (Askahrc got the warning from 134.139.22.141, not from an admin.)

• Philsophyfellow gets blocked as a sock of Tumbleman.[11]

• Askahrc posts about being "uneasy with the antagonistic dynamic" regarding the Sheldrake article.[12]

• 30 minutes later, 134.139.22.141 goes on a trolling spree, templating users with a discretionary sanctions warning along with the text, "Please note that your contributions are disruptive and if they continue on the Rupert Sheldrake page you will face blocking or banning. Please see Tumbleman and Philosophyfellow if you think this isn't serious."[13][14][15]

• 2 hours later, Askahrc starts a new thread on the Sheldrake talk page, saying, "there've been threats of banning for a lot of people (including myself) who have been arguing for some of things that Philosophyfellow was espousing. I'm concerned there's a pattern developing that punishes participation on the Rupert Sheldrake page"[16], later adding, "I get uncomfortable when there are a bunch of anonymous threats to stop editing the page or else, then see the people editing the page getting banned."[17]

• 48 minutes later, 134.139.22.141 gives out another DS template warning and threat.[18]

• Interspersed among the threats, 134.139.22.141 had been writing over-the-top sympathetic/congratulatory remarks to other users.[19][20] On Philosophyfellow's page 134.139.22.141 posted "another one bites the dust".[21].

• 2 hours after 134.139.22.141's trolling spree ends, Askahrc begins writing the arbitration case he would eventually bring.[22]

• 2-3 Dec

• The last arbitrator votes to decline Askahrc's case, making its rejection nearly unanimous.[23]

• The next day, 134.139.22.141 accuses Askahrc of being a Tumbleman sock and taunts Askahrc about the failed arbitration request.[24]

• 30 minutes later, Askahrc responds, "Seriously, 134.139.22.141, are you trying to prove my point about inappropriate threats?"[25]

• Thus on three separate dates and at three separate times of day, 134.139.22.141, who doesn't do anything except troll on Sheldrake matters and who doesn't do anything when Askahrc is not around, responds within 9 or 30 minutes of Askahrc, who doesn't do much besides focus on Sheldrake.

• On 22 Nov and 3 Dec, 134.139.22.141 left a message on Askahrc's page and did no other edits on each of those two days.[26] Why the exclusive focus on Askahrc with threats, warnings, taunts, and accusations? The Sheldrake talk page was quite busy during that time, with stupendously more active editors like Barleybannocks. If 134.139.22.141 was actually trying to be effective, the exclusive focus on Askahrc doesn't make any sense.

• Those three days -- 22 Nov, 25 Nov, and 3 Dec -- are the only times 134.139.22.141 has been active.

• Just a consistency check: Askahrc and 134.139.22.141 both use two spaces after a period, e.g. [27][28].

• The threats and congratulations issued by 134.139.22.141 are really over the top. They seem to be either parody or clumsy attempts to make one side look bad (with all-too-convenient timing).

• Nobody except Askahrc cares about an IP troll. I was puzzled by its inclusion into the arbcom case -- 134.139.22.141 didn't edit the Sheldrake article or talk page; it only did some brief trolling on user pages. This has no relevance to any of the editors on the Sheldrake page. Askahrc not only references 134.139.22.141 in the arbcom case, but does so again three months later in an ANI to support a claim that editors are being reprimanded[29] (link inside is "reprimanding"). Someone aiming to bring an honest case to arbcom or ANI would not play that game.

• Also telling is Askahrc's reversion of TRPoD's removal of the trolling.[30] There's no reason to give trolls any attention, but Askahrc wanted the "evidence" to remain.

• A distinctive and unique idea that Askahrc has cooked up is that there have been "collateral losses" of editors who were wrongly accused of being Tumbleman sockpuppets. Askahrc thinks Alfonzo Green and Barleybannocks were blocked for being Tumbleman socks,[31] a bizarre notion having no basis in reality (they were topic-banned, not blocked, and they are quite obviously different editors). Askahrc even imagines himself to be under suspicion as a Tumbleman sock.[32][33] 134.139.22.141 accused Askahrc and Alfonzo Green of being sockpuppets.[34][35] Nobody besides Askahrc and 134.139.22.141 has ever mentioned a suspicion that either Alfonzo Green or Askahrc is a sock; the idea is plainly absurd.

• Same typo or English mistake: "its", where "it's" is correct.

• Askahrc: "its because these issues are apparent"[36]
• 134.139.22.141: "its still recommended you refrain from editing"[37]

• Both write "[[User:Tumbleman]]" (not knowing WP:PIPETRICK, or forgetting it).[38][39]

• Matching idea/phrase.

• Askahrc: "trolls or sockpuppets"[40]
• 134.139.22.141: "a troll or a sockpuppet"[41]

-- vzaak 20:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• Note this SPI was created when there was an open ANI that was initiated by Askahrc,[42] wherein Askahrc cited 134.139.22.141's activity as evidence (the "reprimanding" link). Since this SPI now been open for over a week, the ANI thread has now been archived. The peculiar stories at Askahrc's talk page indicate an ongoing problem which I had recognized even before the ANI.[43] vzaak 22:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• The diff vzaak presents for my being 134 is a unlike anything I've ever written or done, but is almost a word for word duplicate of a batch of ANI notifications that Mangoe (talk) was sending out during the precise timespan in question to various editors considered disruptive on the Rupert Sheldrake page.

• Here is the diff Mangoe sent to User:Alfonzo_Green on November 18, where he said "our patience is exhausted."
• Here is the diff Mangoe sent to User:Philosophyfellow on November 18 and updated on November 19, where he warned that talk page discussions count as disruptive behavior.
• Here is the diff Mangoe sent to User:David_in_DC on November 18, then updated it on November 20 to say that David's Rfc was a bad idea.
• Here is the diff Vzaak provided of 134's, sent to The Cap'n (talk) on November 21, where he warned that disruptive behavior was not allowed. It's the same ANI, the same style, the same language and the same time period during which Mangoe was contributing.

I think the above is pretty concrete evidence that this was not some bizarre attempt of mine to sockpuppet, but rather either Mangoe forgetting to login or something of the kind. I don't know and don't really care, but this is far stronger than anything Vzaak provides. As I said, I feel the above is sufficient, but in order to address the rest of Vzaak's serious accusations I've posted responses below.

I am not using any sockpuppeting tactics. That goes against every statement, objective and goal that I've ever espoused (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and I've gone out of my way (and opened myself up to a lot of hostility) to be completely transparent about my concerns, offsite contribution and my commitment to WP. I also have to point out the irony of the fact that one day after I put out an ANI stating vzaak has an inappropriate tendency to accuse people who disagree with them of sockpuppetry, Vzaak filed a complaint of sockpuppetry against me.

First off, I believe it's a rather important policy to notify the accused party that they're being accused of something. I was not and have not been. I've never argued there's some secret conspiracy out to get me, but I have pointed out there are editors who seem inappropriately hostile to others. Part of inappropriate behavior can be found in Vzaak's message to User:Barney_the_barney_barney, the other editor referenced in my ANI, which was sent promptly after I informed Vzaak of mentioning them in a concerned post. In it Vzaak says only "check email." Less than 5 hours later Vzaak issued this accusation, with no notice to me, which strongly suggests an improper offsite collaboration, even retaliation. It's not a "conspiracy," but it's not appropriate. Why wouldn't Vzaak share their thoughts about this issue publicly, and why was I not informed?

As far as the IP's location, I graduated from Cal State Long Beach and lived in Long Beach, I do not any longer (I've already volunteered to undergo a checkuser in expectation of this anticipated, predictable response). CSULB has a population of around 40,000, Los Angeles has 18 million and the Rupert Sheldrake page has been featured as a major focus in numerous blogs, forums and journals (1, 2, 3, 4, 5); his WP article receives over 500 visits a day. This makes the argument that no one else could have made these comments hollow. I'm not going to bother with the silly suggestion that using the words sockpuppet, troll, its or bracketing is so unique that I must be 134. By that same standard half of WP is 134.

Finally, Vzaak references that I spent disproportionate attention on 134, and that 134 was the only IP I dealt with. First, I responded with two sentences, and I've dealt with a number of IP addresses on my Talk Page, hostile and not, particularly since I posted my ANI. I used 134 as an example because it was the simplest to reference, but it was not my main focus because I recognized it's probably a troll. If this is a false flag situation what is the impact, and why would I post a handful of statements that don't advance anything I was working on at the time. On the other hand, similarly hostile behavior is seen in reference to my talk page and contributions from other editors who have nothing to do with 134.

A perfect example of this is 76.107.171.90 (talk), who has posted a large number of profane, openly hostile comments on my Talk Page (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and went on to state numerous times that if I kept editing the Sheldrake page I'd be banned, stating "I am simply telling you that you’ve come to a point where you need to decide if you really want to commit “Wikipedia suicide”." 76 has been far more egregious than 134; is Vzaak arguing that I'm also 76, and presumably every other editor who has criticized me? The Cap'n (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Administrator note The evidence presented is fairly convincing. However I'd like a second opinion before I decide on what action to take... Would other admins please have a look through the evidence and give me a second opinion. Also in terms of the sanction, while this is stale given the disruption involved (harassing other users, wasting time with the ArbCom case request) are there any opinions as to whether a sanction of some sort is appropriate (given the IP's first edit was a DS warning we can use them). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

---