Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dollvisual18

[edit] Dollvisual18

• Dollvisual18 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Pikturefanz (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Sandersfare (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Sandarssenfares (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Carleena (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 64.241.37.140 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

• Code letter: G

There have been a number of edits to Kascha Papillon today by the users Dollvisual18, Pikturefanz and Sandersfare. Each of the edits has used very similar language and has promoted a non-POV viewpoint about the article's subject, as well as outright removal of valid information (e.g., the links in the infobox to sites such as IMDB got removed as you can see in this edit). Looking back in the article's history I find similar edits done in the past by Sandarssenfares, Carleena and the anon IP 64.241.37.140. I have a suspicion I am facing one editor who is using a number of sockpuppets to try and avoid WP:3RR censure. Tabercil 01:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide diffs showing that across accounts there was a 3RR violation. Otherwise, there was no policy violation, and checkuser is inappropriate. --Deskana (banana) 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... here's the additional information regarding the edits done on the 9th. First set of edits were done by the account Dollvisual18 [1]. The most distinctive text from this user is the phrase: "Kascha is not affiliated with the exploitative websites that post photos of her,using her name, image, or her likeness."

Second set of edits after reverting (on the basis of deleting valid content) were done by Pikturefanz [2]. The "exploitative websites" phrase has reappeared. Note that this is not someone reverting; if you compare the difference between Dollvisual18's last edit and how it was left by Pikturefanz (as seen here) there are enough differences to indicate the changes were retyped in.

Third set of edits after the reverting were done by Sandersfare [3]. Once again the "exploitative websites" phrase is reused, which was what made me think that what I had was a sock-puppeteer making the edits.

So on that basis I decided to dig into the article's history to see if this person has been active prior. The first thing I spotted was this edit by Sandarssenfares back in May where that "exploitative websites" phrase was added. Thus the addition of that account to the checklist.

The next set of edits that caught my eye were done by Carleena back on January 14th. In addition to the "exploitative websites" phrase, the same person also used the phrase "sultry, exotic look featured on the cover of adult girly magazines" in the lead paragraph during the edits by Dollvisual18, Pikturefanz, Sandersfare and Sandarssenfares. And sure enough, Carleena also uses the exact same turn of the phrase in her edit here.

And that same turn of the "sultry, exotic look featured on the cover of adult girly magazines" phrase was used by the anon IP 64.241.37.140 in the edits of February 23rd, as seen [4].

Does that lay the case out well enough? Tabercil 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional information needed Can you please provide the information in an easier format for me, like you'd see at WP:AN3? It's still not clear there has actually been a 3RR vio across the accounts. --Deskana (banana) 10:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk assistance required: Delist until evidence is provided. --Deskana (apples) 13:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: apparently the person is using code G, not E. G states "Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway." Going to let another clerk delist it, to me it fits. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, since the requestor said "I have a suspicion I am facing one editor who is using a number of sockpuppets to try and avoid WP:3RR censure". --Deskana (apples) 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I see it, thanks for pointing that out. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor in question is inactive so I'm going to let the checkuser slide. If he starts back up again, I'll do the work in putting it into one format as Deskana asks for. Tabercil 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delisted until requested evidence is provided. WjBscribe 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)