Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AirFrance358

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AirFrance358}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

AirFrance358

Evidence of disruptive page moves in the Sea of Japan article, recently by Toyko (talk · contribs):

Group 2: Some of these were coordinated attacks, operating in the same time frame as

talk · contribs
) socks in January below:

Group 3: Problematic IP address used in January:

Submitted by: Endroit (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AirFrance358

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a violation of the "Parties reminded" remedy of the Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. Revert-warring is occurring accross multiple articles, along nationalistic lines (Korea vs. Japan), and there appeared to be no civil discussion in the talk pages in most cases. (For the other side of the revert-war, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amazonfire.) --Endroit (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is "the violation" done within your report? By your own standard from Japanese nationalistic party? I know you have been always suspected as a sockpuppet master by many people, so it is worth to include you in my report. So where are evidences that I'm the same person of Ecthelion83 and possible 3RR violation. You need to faithfully make differs on your suspected incidents, but no with this untidy mess. And why are you including
talk) 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Addition I suggested Endroit to make differs but he didn't. I think the inclusion of me appears to be arbitrary per Endroit's commnet at his talk page.[1]. He accused me of a sock of Ecthelion83 or banned user User:Appleby due to similar name. The case was actually irrelevant to Sea of Japan and AirFrance358.

I copy and paste these differs from 219.66.40.104 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 219.66.45.131 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))'s job who vandalized my report on Amazonefire. 4 times [2] [3]

1th rever 07:56, 7 January 2008 by Ecthelion83
2th rever 22:18, 7 January 2008 by Appletrees
3th rever 05:03, 8 January 2008 by Ecthelion83
4th rever 22:13, 8 January 2008 by Appletrees
5th rever 22:20, 8 January 2008 by Appletrees
6th rever 22:36, 8 January 2008 by Ecthelion83
7th rever 00:51, 9 January 2008 by Ecthelion83
8th rever 20:22, 10 January 2008 by Appletrees
9th rever 20:19, 14 January 2008 by Ecthelion83
10th rever 20:19, 14 January 2008 by Appletrees

Supposed that I'm a sock of the aforementioned people, the articles Endroit provides for evidences are just random and irrelevant from any possible violation on 3RR except

talk) 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • no Declined Evidence of collusion between Appletrees and Ecthelion83 is limited to two articles and one revert violation, so for now, insufficient basis to check. Thatcher 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what "meat-puppetry" has to do with those diffs. Obviously there are some deep divisions here, but as far as Appletrees and Ecthelion83 are concerned, one 3RR violation and two total articles with possible collusion is insufficient grounds to check/reveal private information. This can be re-opened if further instances of possible collusion occur. Thatcher 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the likelihood of Appletrees' being related to the others I listed above (involved in Sea of Japan)?. Is it "inconclusive"?--Endroit (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Thatcher, why don't you just check on me as his request? I feel annoyed by this false accusation of causing edit warring. If he made diffs when to make this file as my advice, this file would be clear soon. I don't really mind being checked. But his accusation and chide is unbearable. Even though he thinks of someone suspicious, Endroit should not tag sockpupptry template before filing an official report. I don't know why my object to his ill-faith move is called "meat-puppetry". --
        talk) 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]

 Possible that

talk · contribs) and Ecthelion83 (talk · contribs) are related. Note that the overlap between the two accounts is minor and only recent, so if these accounts are the same person, then they just have to make sure not to overlap again. Of course, coincidence and synchronicity exist, and checkusers can't see through the pipe to really know who is at the other end. Thatcher 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Azuchi-Momoyama period
.Please confirm it.

Revert was repeated by these two accounts as for Nihon Shoki.

--Orchis29 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The technical investigation is over. The next step would be for someone (preferably an editor with clean hands, actually) to ask an uninvolved admin to review the situation. Appletrees has a pretty good argument that this is indeed a matter of coincidence, although that argument should be independently reviewed, as should any evidence of disruptive collaboration by the two, also taking into account the much better documented disruption by the other side in this dispute. Thatcher 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidences against this absurd accusation

These compared diffs are exactly time-matched edits by Appletrees (me) and Ecthelion83 on Jan. 8th 2008. Although the time records show up to minute, but I don't see why I have to put up with this false accusation of a sockpuppeter or meatpuppter by whom many editors believe them as disruptive POV editors and possible sockpuppet masters. I didn't make a whole comparison between my edits and the other's, but I think it might clear things up.

Each table holds all of edits by Appletrees and Ecthelion82 on Jan. 8th 2008. And the indents are overlapped time ranges and bold texts indicate exactly overlapped time. --

talk) 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

FYI, Orchi29, you should be aware of

talk
)

1st series

2nd series

These interval times are too short.

talk) 22:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

They are "too short" because we do not agree with your POV pushing. I have little to say about this case. I am confident that checkuser will not find anything because we are two different users with different interests in mind. миражinred (speak, my child...) 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated Thatcher 13:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I really don't know what to say to this. I do understand that lots of accounts who appear to have related interests can look as if a single person is behind all of them, but to be honest, this is absurd. I know everyone's finally agreed on the truth of the fact that Appletrees and I are unrelated, but all you would have had to do is check some of the contribs I've made that are unrelated to Korea/Japan topics. Even from my point of view, my other contribs are pretty much all over the place, and they're just my way of trying to clean up this user-generated source of information we call Wikipedia.

And you know what - even though I probably don't have to, I wanted to apologize to Appletrees for overlapping a little and giving these puppets (some might go so far as to call them douchebags and other four-letter-plus words that are inappropriate for civil conversation) any ammunition. I was just trying to correct mistakes where I found them (if you looked at the listing of my edits - the really long one, you'll also see one edit on the "spermatogenesis" article; it's a spelling correction). Too bad that other people use their accounts (or multiple accounts) to cause all sorts of problems and delay the progression of Wikipedia into a reliable, professional-looking, finished (well, for those articles that no longer need editing) product. Ecthelion83 (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/AirFrance358&oldid=1080979736"