Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Appledell

[edit] Appledell

• Appledell (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Searchin man (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• IPSOS (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Bksimonb (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Riveros11 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Code letter: B.
• Supporting evidence: Checkuser report to support suspected meatpuppet team practising WP:OWN, please see diffs and accusations supplied here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bksimonb

Although I think that these are separate individuals, I suggest that this is clear as possible an example of dedicated meatpuppetry. WP:SOCK states that in such cases, such individuals should be treat the same as sockpuppets.

User:Bksimonb states that he is an official BKWSU IT PR team member [1]. In a previous Arbcom decision, [2] and user page, [3] it was disclosed that User:Riveros11 was also part of the team and confirmed puppeteer [4]. I suspected that single user account User:Appledell is also. Both exhibit a trend of following the leadership of User:Bksimonb. In the arbcom case, it was stated that there was "clear evidence of article ownership".[5]

Bksimonb [6] Riveros11 [7], [8], [9] Reneeholle[10] Appledell [11] reverts back to Bksimonb version [12]

Both User:Bksimonb [13], User:Riveros11 and User:IPSOS [14] have filed disproportionate report of vandalism, personal attacks, checkusers, sockpuppetry complaints regarding the BKWSU page, included some while logged out so they do not appear in the contribution history of the named account, apparently to intimdate any user contradiction the organization's position, even those well known not to be socks by other editors.

(To avoid any counter-accusation, I recently required to change my user name due to a lost password but have reported this [15]).

Thank you. AWachowski 22:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Upset. You ruined my lovely "no current requests" bit. :-( --Deskana (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Go gettum cowboy! Its a durty job but someone has to do it ... (failing that, you could always send me off to some other department!)--AWachowski 01:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Declined. This is not Code B. Firstly, you replaced the text that said "REPLACE THIS WITH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE REQUIRED BY THE TABLE" with an SSP case, which wasn't what was asked for. You're also linking to proposed remedies like they're actual remedies. There was no remedy banning the users. Therefore, I do not see how these users can be evading remedies or bans placed by the Arbitration Committee. --Deskana (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)