Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joyce cherry

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

Joyce cherry





 * Code letter: A

There's an longstanding problem of BLP revert-warring on the article Wendi Deng, with baseless claims, baseless counter-claims, and in the middle of that a couple of users like who are responsibly trying to keep the whole thing neutral. The history over the last couple of months includes a large number of single purpose accounts and IPs (some of which WikiScanner will have a field day with!). I suspect there are in fact only two editors warring: one of them may very well be Joyce Cherry herself or someone close to her (apparently, M. Cherry left his wife for Mrs Deng). The other may turn out to be Mrs Deng herself or someone from the Murdoch camp (note that some of the IPs can be traced back to News Corp). This is my first attempt at using RfCU to try and stop this mess: all the above accounts have solely been used to attack Mrs. Deng. Pascal.Tesson 16:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ... some of these users have no recent edits and can't technically be checked. Every user you list, when I checked it, was an SPA. Those are all blockable based on behaviour, in my view. The first two IPs have no significant contributions other than Wendy Deng and might be blockable as well. The last one has a wide variety of edits. All of this info was gathered by looking at contributions and block logs. If I'm missing something here please advise, but I'm not seeing the need for a CU case. This seems straightforward without it. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I have blocked all the accounts as SPAs. I suppose I was hoping for a block of the underlying IP. This is a recurring problem on the article and I have semi-protected it many times before to try and limit the damage. These are not your every day "Britney sucks" vandalism but a long-standing pattern of pretty brutal BLP violations. I don't have sufficient experience with checkuser policy to know whether this is sufficient to warrant a check and if it isn't, then so be it. But it seemed reasonable to ask. Pascal.Tesson 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I confess I ran some tests. I don't think there is just one underlying IP to block. I would perhaps suggest using autoblocking though, with new account creation disabled, I don't think the collateral damage will be great. We have the mailing list to let people ask for accounts, after all. The CU would not tell us much more than we know already from the contribs... there is one or a small group of users behind this disruption. I could be wrong. I welcome correction by more experienced CUs. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Pascal.Tesson 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Pascal. This article really needs this kind of scrutiny - it is, as you mentioned, subject to frequent and organized attempts both to slander Deng and to censor the article's content. The last IP address is one that is shared in my office, and that change was made by me (I forgot to sign in). As for the others, is someone who was obsessed with the idea that Rupert Murdoch owns New York Magazine,  was shilling for an Australian article about Deng, and  is someone who thinks that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. I think it is plausible that, and  are the same person. Alexwoods 13:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC) ''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.''