Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Appleby

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Appleby


Ginnre and Deiaemeth initiated a potentially controversial move in Port Hamilton without WP:RFPM and without prior discussion, to which Komdori and LactoseTI responded by moving them back. As pointed out in Requests for checkuser/Case/LactoseTI, Port Hamilton is an obscure topic, which suggests collaboration.

Such undiscussed moves (ignoring WP:RFPM) are a trademark of User:Appleby, banned for excessive revert warring using sock puppetry. Here's one back in December, where Appleby unilaterally moved East Sea to East Sea (disambiguation) and redirected East Sea to Sea of Japan, later being helped by Deiaemeth. This ended up in a failed Mediation in March, where Deiaemeth mysteriously agrees to mediate, but then goes into hiding, abandoning any attempt to discuss during mediation. See Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation) & User:MyNameIsNotBob/East Sea. After much discussion, East Sea (disambiguation) was eventually moved back to East Sea.

Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea may be headed for another mediation, and there seems some renewed interests. It previously involved 2 banned users: User:Appleby and User:Taeguk Warrior. On June 21, Taeguk Warrior unilaterally moved the article from Seven-Year War to Imjin War. On July 19, Komdori tried to move it back, but was resisted by Appleby and his sock Damool.  This one has attracted many users like myself, and after much discussion, we moved it to the current title Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. Then on Sept. 14, Deiaemeth unilaterally moved it to Seven-Year Wars , but was reverted. WP:RFCU has become a large part of measuring the consensus in Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea ever since User:Appleby and his socks were banned. Falling short of requesting a check on all users there, I am only requesting a check on users with a particular editing pattern.--Endroit 13:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Does not rise to the level of abuse to warrant a check. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I may have done this incorrectly. User:Appleby is a permanently banned user.  Can you look into it again?  Or should I assume that these 2 users are not related to Appleby?  Thank you for your help.--Endroit 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

was the person Appleby banned from editing under any username by community consensus, or was the account Appleby simply blocked? Daniel.Bryant 03:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The block logs shows a community ban; the relevant discussion is a bit more ambiguous. Note that Deiaemeth and Ginnre were both active when Mackensen ran the first check and he didn't name them (look at the full page, not just the transcluded section). So they're not likely to be socks of Appleby, and (per UninvitedCompany) there doesn't seem to be enough of a problem to warrant checking them against each other, at least for the time being. Thatcher131 05:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Appleby's 12 confirmed socks all had some activity in July, but Deiaemeth was completely inactive during July and August. The last checkuser may have missed Deiaemeth because of this inactivity.
 * Also, Deiaemeth added Appleby to the List of non-admins with high edit counts back in February, suggesting some kind of a link between Deiaemeth and Appleby.--Endroit 18:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Appleby




Collaboration to avert the WP:3RR rules. Excessive revert warring, to counter the Kamosuke group below. These 2 groups are constantly at it with each other, and they're equally disruptive.

Note: It's unknown which is the main user of this group. Endroit 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This diff shows Dollarfifty making a comment on behalf of HSL, which seems to show some kind of collaboration. --Endroit 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

An overlapping request on the same users was filed by User: Mythologia at Requests for checkuser/Case/Dollarfifty but was never properly listed. I've merged the requests and redirected that case here. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

''HSL and Damool recently gained a place in WikipedaA especially in aritcle of Japan and they scarcely explain their edits. Dollarfifty was given warning of 3RR a lot of times. Appleby was blocked for violation of the 3RR many times. Tyler111 and Tortfeasor were blocked for violation of the 3RR. Tortfeasor requested for checkuser against one side of edit battles about Japan. Mythologia 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)''

✅ in part. The following accounts are all the same user:

Tyler111 and Tortfeasor are not related to this group and have no relation to each other. As for the rest, I'm declaring Appleby the main account and I recommend that the rest be blocked. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All confirmed socks have been indef blocked, and Appleby has been warned and blocked for 24 hours for running the puppet show. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  01:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A 24-hour blocking of Appleby is obviously too short. Appleby did not just circumvent 3RR but created the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists:
 * Talk:Imjin_Wars
 * Dollarfifty, Appleby and Damool
 * Talk:Imjin_Wars
 * Damool and Dollarfifty
 * Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute
 * Appleby and Dollarfifty
 * Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute
 * Appleby and Dollarfifty
 * Talk:Rusk documents
 * Appleby and Dollarfifty

Also, Appleby and Dollarfifty talked to each other to camouflage sock puppetry. Extremely vicious.

Another point to keep in mind is that Appleby is hardworking (to do bad things). Can anyone other than Appleby run so many accounts simultaneously with clever tricks? Appleby is far more harmful to Wikipedia than other socks. --Nanshu 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a recommended time? He's been blocked for 72 hours in the past for 3RR, so I'd think something longer than that might be warranted. A week? A month? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indefinite. Period shorter than one year isn't acceptable. --Ypacaraí 07:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This should probably be discussed at WP:ANI or WP:AN so it will get a wider audience. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There must be scores of 3RR violations Appleby got away with, using sockpuppets. Here's one:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
 * I think you need to re-assess the magnitude of 3RR violations he made (and got away with) as well.--Endroit 00:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. I've started a new section for Appleby's block there. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#How long should Appleby be blocked?. --Nanshu 12:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Appleby has been indef blocked due to overwhelming evidence showing no likely change in his repeated blatant policy violations. This case can be closed now. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  08:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Appleby




User:71.139.187.166 started making edits to Talk:Sea of Japan, pushing the same POV that User:Appleby was pushing before he was blocked for 3RR violations. Please check if they are sock puppets of each other. --Nlu (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is also perhaps notable that after Appleby's block expired, no more edits from the IP. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No evidence can be found with CheckUser to support this. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 12:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

and others
These users are constantly involved in Edit Wars, and frequently support each other. Please check if any of them are sockpuppets of each other. If they are, they may have used the sockpuppet(s) to avoid 3RR yesterday. is particularly suspect, because after coming into existence, DueDiehcal immediately started to engage in Edit Wars and even defaced an opposing user's page.--Endroit 02:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Closed with no action (stale). Thatcher131

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made below, in a new section.''