Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc/Archive

16 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * 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.


 * 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.


 * 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..." 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.


 * 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."


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


 * 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". (Askahrc got the warning from 134.139.22.141, not from an admin.)


 * Philsophyfellow gets blocked as a sock of Tumbleman.


 * Askahrc posts about being "uneasy with the antagonistic dynamic" regarding the Sheldrake article.


 * 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."


 * 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", 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."


 * 48 minutes later, 134.139.22.141 gives out another DS template warning and threat.


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


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


 * 2-3 Dec


 * The last arbitrator votes to decline Askahrc's case, making its rejection nearly unanimous.


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


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


 * 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. 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..


 * 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 (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. 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, 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. 134.139.22.141 accused Askahrc and Alfonzo Green of being sockpuppets. 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"
 * 134.139.22.141: "its still recommended you refrain from editing"


 * Both write " User:Tumbleman " (not knowing WP:PIPETRICK, or forgetting it).


 * Matching idea/phrase.
 * Askahrc: "trolls or sockpuppets"
 * 134.139.22.141: "a troll or a sockpuppet"

-- 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, 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. 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&#39;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&#39;n (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The counterclaim that Vzaak and I might have some connection is preposterous, as is the assertion that the diff in question is "a word-for-word duplicate" of anything I wrote. Other than that I have no comment on the merits of the case. Mangoe (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment from annoyed-to-have-been-dragged-into-this Mangoe


 * Comment from vzaak


 * In Askahrc's above statement there are additional cases of not knowing WP:PIPETRICK or forgetting it. Of course, this is presented in the context of the entire body of evidence provided, not as a single point of reference. Updated evidence:
 * Askahrc: User:Alfonzo_Green, User:Philosophyfellow, User:David_in_DC, User:User:Barney_the_barney_barney, User:Tumbleman.
 * 134.139.22.141: User:Tumbleman.


 * I said that 134.139.22.141 had an exclusive focus on Askahrc on two separate days, not that Askahrc had an exclusive focus on 134.139.22.141. I did not say that 134.139.22.141 was the only IP Askahrc dealt with.


 * Askahrc has accused me of having an "inappropriate tendency" to accuse people of sockpuppetry. In Askahrc's recent campaigning for Tumbleman, he has been pushing a story that Tumbleman admits to four socks while insisting that he had no IP socks. The claim is that this evidence, for example, is wrong. I daresay that I cannot imagine a more solid case of IP socking. The shared IP with the confirmed sock Philosophyfellow is damning enough on its own; when added to the other evidence, there just isn't any question. Moreover, the presumed admitted socks appeared both before and after the IP socks, and were blocked according to similar evidence. If Askahrc has a problem with the admin who evaluated the SPI, then Askahrc should take it up with the admin, not with me.


 * Contrary to Askahrc's claim, Mangoe's style is nothing like that of 134.139.22.141. Mangoe uses one space after a period, e.g., while (as noted earlier) 134.139.22.141 and Askahrc uses two spaces after a period, e.g. Mangoe is polite while 134.139.22.141 is brash. Askahrc also says "same ANI", but it doesn't make sense to wait four days between notifying users. The accusation against Mangoe has no merit.


 * I don't understand why Askahrc is bringing up other users who have no relevance to this SPI.

vzaak 14:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * By "exclusive focus" does Vzaak mean being one of eight editors referenced by 134? Or by exclusive do they mean that 134 made 2 comments to me instead of one, which happened to other editors as well?  Or perhaps that this "exclusive focus" on my part was to include a mention of 134 in a long list of other diffs that I put much more emphasis on.  Additionally, I am not accusing Mangoe of anything, I am simply demonstrating that there are closer similarities to other editors than myself, who had no reason to post this.  ANI's may be a template, but the exact same case of "Consensus by Exhaustion" was referenced in both instances.  Another unaddressed issue (besides Vzaak's failure to notify me) is why this sockpuppeting case is coming up 3 months after the fact, with no additional activity by 134?


 *  At am a  頭, I respectfully urge you to carefully peruse my history and the diffs I've provided. The kind of deception I'm being accused of is 100% out of character for me, I pride myself on my transparency and efforts to cooperate.  If I seem desperate it's because I've seen this process repeated by Vzaak around a half dozen times, and Vzaak is very good at compiling selective circumstantial evidence.  I love WP and do not want to lose my access for something I didn't do and had no reason to do.  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is quite a massive case that has been built against The Cap&#39;n concerning an IP account that made 13 edits more than three months ago. There are a helluva lot of diffs to go through and I can't ascertain whether or not the accounts are linked. I just don't view placing DS warnings on talk pages as vandalism and I think the case being made is disproportionate to any damage done last November by this IP. And, knowing the dynamic of the parties involved, merely posting this comment will be seen as me choosing sides and a negative act and might come back to haunt me. To me, it's hard to see this case as anything more than payback between two parties who disagree with each other on content issues. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment from Liz

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * 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)
 * I think sanctions are in order. The disruption being presented doesn't seem stale in the sense that it has ripples that continue today. I dislike the deception presented in this SPI, and it feels like desperation to claim that the IP is someone else, and as evidence use a "word for word duplicate" amount of text which is actually a template (one suggested to every ANI user at the top of the page). I'm not sure what the nature of the sanction would be, but I do feel that something is warranted. --  At am a  頭 16:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How does this sound:
 * A warning to Askahrc for wasting the community's time in a number of places, giving users inappropriate warnings by using something similar to a good hand/bad hand account. With these, user the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, a restriction that Askahrc use only the Askahrc account (except accounts disclosed the Arbitration Committee) and a ban on giving any editor a notification of the existence of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd fully support that result. --  At am a  頭 18:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Warned and sanctioned, see here. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

03 April 2014

 * 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 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 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.


 * 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.''

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 - A l is o n  ❤ 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 Read! Talk! 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&#39;n (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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 - A l is o n  ❤ 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)


 * I'm glad that the Checkuser shows that I have no connection to this action. I'm at my motel in AZ, so my interactions will be spotty, but I did finally get a chance to look at the incident cited in more depth.  To clear a few things (and with respect to the admins in that prior SPI), the previous case vzaak pushed against me did NOT rule that I was harassing editors.
 * @vzaak, you have been accusing me of SPI's, AE's (with no evidence) and weighing in consistently that I need to be blocked ever since I stated you had a habit of bullying editors who disagree with you. Accusing me of issuing a death threat against someone, however, is a completely different matter.  The fact that you would use a serious circumstance like a death threat to accuse me of a crime based on flimsy, circumstantial guesses is appalling.  I find it hypocritical in the least that you complained of Liz's aspersions when you're effectively calling me a criminal, apparently just to get one more case in the logs against me.  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 00:30, 5 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)
 * 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 - A l is o n  ❤ 23:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This case needs to be dealt with, so checking per comments above. I can say that is ❌ to the IP mentioned above and is geographically located elsewhere -  A l is o n  ❤ 19:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)