Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Apteva

Add links
From 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/Apteva}}
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.

Apteva[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 03:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence:

I filed a Suspected sock puppet case here but the reviewer suggested I file on this page. Apteva has a history of avoiding consensus and blocking progress on the Solar energy page and elsewhere. I believe Apteva has several other sock puppets than those listed below but I cannot provide good evidence for them. Hopefully a checkuser can identify them.

  • October 3rd - 199.125.109.95 editing comments made by Delphi234 [1]
  • October 9th - Apteva signing comments by 199.125.109.87 [2]
  • Apteva is a tendentious editor who has refused to follow the consensus first established through an RFC and repeatedly affirmed. Traditionally he's used the dynamic IP set of the form 199.125.109.xxx, then Apteva and more recently he's used Delphi234 to prolong his argument.
  • See the Disruption section of Oakwillow's talk page for the evidence of 199.125.109.xxx use of an additional identity. This account has not been used to edit the Solar energy page but he's carried on an argument against many editors on the Article size talk page that nearly resulted in a checkuser.
  • The bulk of Apteva's activity on the Solar energy page has involved blocking progress on the lede section and insisting on the inclusion of a diagram that a consensus wanted to remove. The original RFC took place about a year ago but despite reaching a consensus at that time Apteva continued to work around the results.


199.125.109.28 & Oakwillow Article Size
March 15th 2008 - 199.125.109.28 initiates arguments against current page size guidelines [3]
April 8th 2008 - Oakwillow account created [4]
May 14th - Oakwillow changes Article size guideline [5]
May 14th - Bobblehead reverts changes due to conflict with ongoing consensus discussion on talk page [6]
May 14th - Oakwillow changes Article size guideline [7]
May 14th - North Shoreman reverts changes - [8]
May 14th - Oakwillow changes Article size guideline [9]
May 14th - Bobblehead reverts changes [10]
May 15th - Oakwillow changes Article size guideline [11]
May 15th - North Shoreman reverts changes [12]
May 30th - Oakwillow changes Article size guideline [13]
May 30th - HermanHiddema reverts changes [14]
June 5th - Oakwillow changes Article size guideline [15]
June 5th - HermanHiddema reverts changes [16]
June 17th - Oakwillow shifts focus to Article size thumbrule [17]
June 17th - SandyGeorgia reverts changes [18]
June 18th - Oakwillow shifts focus to Article size thumbrule [19]
June 19th - North Shoreman reverts changes [20]
July 9th - Oakwillow changes Article size guideline [21]
July 9th - North Shoreman reverts changes [22]
July 30th - Oakwillow adds disputed section tag [23]
July 30th - SandyGeorgia reverts change "one person, vs. many, does not a dispute make" [24]
July 30th - Oakwillow reverts SandyGorgia's reversion [25]
July 30th - North Shoreman reverts Oakwillow [26]


Apteva Article Size
October 18th - 199.125.109.134 calls for size reduction from 74 kBto 32kB [27]
October 20th Mrshaba removing call [28]
November 23rd 199.125.109.129 calls for size reduction to 32kB [29]
November 30th - 24.85.246.143 (Mrshaba) removing call[30]
November 30th - 199.125.109.43 calls for size reduction to 32kB [31]
December 1st - Mrshaba removing call [32]
December 3rd - 199.125.109.43 calls for size reduction to 32kB on [33]
December 3rd - 199.125.109.43 calls for size reduction [34]
April 25th - Mrshaba removes call for size reduction [35]
April 30th - 199.125.109.37 Reduce size of article. Major trimming needed. [36]
May 4th - Mrshaba removes todo [37]
May 6th - 199.125.109.57 adds size reduction call [38]
August 11th - Mrshaba removed call for reduction [39]
Note, Apteva continues to call for size reductions after all the activity on the Article Size page as Oakwillow
August 11th - Apteva calls for size reduction to 30-40 kB[40]
August 11th - Geometry Guy removes size reduction todo [41]


Page name issue
I started editing the page in 2006 and although I rewrote a few section during the first year I didn't start regularly editing until August 2007. At that point it became clear the page name needed to be changed. This is how I met Apteva on August 3rd. The page name was changed October 12th after this discussion. That conflict bled into the diagram issue.


Diagram Issue 2007
September 23rd - 199.125.109.104 initial insertion of diagram [42]
September 23rd - 24.85.246.143 (Mrshaba) removing diagram [43]
September 23rd - 199.125.109.104 inserting diagram [44]
September 23rd - Mrshaba removing picture [45]
September 24th - 199.125.109.38 inserting diagram [46]
September 24th - 207.6.154.244 removing image on [47]
September 25th - 69.37.243.171 inserting image [48] note - This is likely Apteva/199 based upon this edit [49]
September 25th - Mrshaba removing image [50]
September 26th - 199.125.109.31 inserting diagram[51]
September 26th - 24.85.246.143 (Mrshaba) removing diagram [52]
September 26th - 199.125.109.31 inserting diagram [53]
September 26th - 24.85.246.143 (Mrshaba) removing diagram [54]
September 26th - 199.125.109.10 reinserting diagram [55]
September 27th - 63.194.124.62 (Texas?) removing diagram [56]
September 27th - 199.125.124.104 inserting diagram [57]
September 27th - 66.122.72.227 (Mrshaba) removing diagram [58]
September 27th - 199.125.109.31 inserting diagram on [59]
September 27th - 62.1.229.85 (Greece) removing diagram on [60]
September 27th - Solar power protected due to ip edit war [61]
October 5th - Solar energy unprotected [62]
October 6th - 199.125.109.38 inserts diagram and reverts intro [63]
October 6th - Mrshaba removing diagram [64]
October 7th - 199.125.109.41 inserting diagram [65]
October 7th - Mrshaba removes diagram [66]
October 7th - 199.125.109.129 inserting diagram [67]
October 7th - Mrshaba removes diagram [68]
October 8th - 199.125.109.38 inserting diagram [69]
October 8th - Mrshaba removes diagram [70]
October 8th - 199.125.109.27 inserting diagram [71]
October 8th - Mrshaba removes diagram [72]
October 8th - 199.125.109.27 inserting diagram [73]
October 8th - Mrshaba removes diagram [74]
October 8th - Page full protected [75]
October 12th - Page name changed from Solar Power to Solar Energy after discussion. [76]
October 16th - Page unprotected [77]
October 17th - 199.125.109.56 inserts diagram [78]
October 17th - 209.247.23.66 removes diagram [79]
October 17th - 199.125.109.104 inserts diagram and bulleted list to lead [80]
October 21st - Mrshaba initiated RFC on Pictures. The diagram receives no support.
October 31st - Mrshaba removes diagram following RFC results [81]
October 31st - 199.125.109.41 inserts diagram [82]
October 31st - Mrshaba removes diagram [83]
November 1st - 199.125.109.134 inserts diagram [84]
November 5th - Solar energy reaches GA status [85]
November 10th - Mrshaba removing diagram [86]
November 10th - 199.125.109.27 reinserting diagram [87]
November 13th - Mrshaba replaced diagram [88]
November 14th - 199.125.109.129 inserting image [89]
May 7th - Page protected due this edit
May 9th - Mrshaba removes diagram [90]
May 19th - Solar energy unprotected [91]
May 21st - 199.125.109.43 inserts diagram [92]
May 22nd - Delphi234 updates diagram [93]
May 23rd - Mrshaba replaced diagram [94]
May 24th - 199.125.109.134 inserts diagram [95]
May 28th - Solar energy protected due to obstructive activity by 199.125.109.xxx [96]
May 28th - Mrshaba replacing diagram [97]
May 29th - Apteva account created [98]
June 3rd - Apteva reinserting diagram [99]
June 3rd - Mrshaba replacing diagram [100]
June 4th - Apteva reinserting diagram [101]
June 6th - Page unprotected [102]
June 16th - 199.125.109.31 reinserting image [103]
June 26th - Mediation case filed See Closing section
June 27th - Judith removing image [104]
June 28th - Apteva reinserting image [105]
July 17th - Mrshaba removed lede pictures per mediation [106]
July 17th - Apteva reinserting image in another area of the article [107]
July 31st - Geometry guy removing diagram [108]
August 3rd - Apteva reinserting diagram [109]
August 3rd - Geometry guy removing diagram [110]
August 3rd - Apteva reinserting diagram [111]
August 6th - Geometry guy removing diagram [112]
August 7th - Apteva reinserting diagram [113]
October 3rd - ScienceApologist removes diagram [114]
October 3rd - Skyemoor inserts diagram [115]
October 4th - Itsmedudith removes diagram [116]
October 4th - Page protected [117]
October 5th - Delphi reinserting diagram [118]
October 5th - ItsmeJudith removing diagram [119]
October 6th - Delphi reinserting diagram [120]
October 6th - Hertz removing diagram [121]
October 13th - Apteva reinserts diagram [122]
October 13th - Skyemoor removing diagram [123]
October 13th - Apteva reinserts diagram [124]
October 13th - Skyemoor removing diagram [125]
October 14th - Page protected [126]
October 15th - Apteva reinserts diagram [127]
October 15th - Skyemoor removes diagram [128]
October 15th - Apteva inserts table Mrshaba proposed during Mediation [129] See diagram discussion page i.e. repeat cycle
Mrshaba (talk)
October 28th - Delphi234 continues to drag things out: "I don't recall the earlier discussion, but apparently the diagram has already been extensively discussed and objections are in the minority."[130]. See also 15 to 1 consensus. I don't think emailing the arbcom list (if that in fact occurred) resolved this. Mrshaba (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]



It is believed that this request is both frivolous and malicious. Reason F is "Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community", however no evidence of that is presented. 99% of my edits are done as an Ip user. I forget to log in enough times that it is trivial to find out which ISP I use, but I can guarantee that there are other Wikipedia editors using the same ISP and I see no evidence that any of them have been acting to "evade blocks, bans, etc.". I do see edits that I didn't make, which is why I know that I'm not the only editor using this ISP. As to multiple usernames, there are several reasons documented which are permissible uses of alternate usernames, and that use does not need to be documented, although that is recommended. I'm aware of that, but for reasons of anonymity, I will never confirm nor deny any alternate accounts. Basically, Mrshaba is an SPA who doesn't like having anyone else edit "his" article. When I brought up that he was possibly paid by his employer to protect the article, he laughed it off; and quickly deleted his userpage which had indicated his employer. All of my edits on the lead of the solar energy article are solely intended to make it a better encyclopedia article. As to the diagram, it was created by Frank Mierlo, who got disgusted with inane arguments and left Wikipedia. At the present time it's the the best diagram we have to show the amount of solar energy available, and is essential to the article. Unless you don't want anyone to know that information... Apteva (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at SSP, there is too much recent jumping back-and-forth between these accounts for my tastes. File it under G if you'd prefer but we've got two accounts and five IPs re-adding a diagram to an article so a case could be made for D as well. Semantics aside, something doesn't smell quite right here, including your evasive responses. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there is nothing wrong with the appropriate use of alternate accounts - I don't care if someone flips back and forth once a second for that matter. Not something I would ask for a check user for. That's just being nosy. D? That's vote fraud. Adding a diagram is not a vote. And by the way who created the diagram in question? Delphi. And whether or not that is the same as any other user is not really important, as long as those alternate accounts are not used inappropriately. Apteva (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that clandestine use of multiple accounts in the same dispute is a pretty classic violation of WP:SOCK. On that basis, I'll say Apteva and Delphi are very  Likely the same person, though I caution admins to consider the considerable amount of time since the Delphi account was last used; Oakwillow is no Declined absent some evidence of a specific violation. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, I filed the original sockpuppet case on the 9th. I made notifications to Delphi234, Oakwillow and Apteva at that time. One wouldn't expect any continued activity while a sockpuppet case was ongoing? Mrshaba (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only purpose of checkuser is to find out a users IP address, and I can assure you, I have forgotten to log in enough times that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what it is. As to multiple accounts in the same dispute, I disagree. If you look at the edit history you will see that an image that was created by Delphi was inappropriately nominated for deletion, and preemptively deleted from several articles with the edit summary ("Removing instances of image Available Energy-3.png beacuse 'This image is original research. Determination of the wattage and association with volumes of cubes is essentially a synthesis meant to advance a perspective. Change!'")[131] - yet the ifd had not even been decided - you can't delete images just because they were nominated for deletion. Delphi restored the images in all of the articles that they were deleted from, and it is completely false to assume that that was a "clandestine use of multiple accounts in the same dispute". Apteva (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then you re-added the same disputed image using the Apteva account at least three times according to what's above. Same dispute, same person, different account. The end. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separate issue, though I can see how Mrshaba could have mistaken it for the same issue. That was a week later and was about the article, not the image. The diagram was under discussion at the time as well as the caption for the image. It still is, but in the meantime, while the discussion is continuing a table is in the article instead. Apteva (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its become clear that your use of alternate accounts is troublesome, so its time for you to permanently retire your other accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to indicate alternate accounts. Bear in mind that Mrshaba is only pursuing this because of a personal vendetta on their part, and not any interest in the good of Wikipedia. Mrshaba just wants me gone permanently. Apteva (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not taking action in this case, but it would be a positive move to indicate alternate accounts. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please e-mail me if you have any further questions. In the meantime, as is often said, there's an article that needs work. Or two (or 6,818,546), except that I can't do much for the Pokeman and Stephen Colbert ones. My last exposure to pop culture was seeing the Fab Four live, who I only learned about from my math teacher. Apteva (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you indicate one? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I e-mailed the arbcom list. Apteva (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Both accounts continue editing in similar areas, please stop or you will be blocked. -- lucasbfr talk 17:49, 28 October 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/Apteva&oldid=1083985523"