Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pinkadelica

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

Pinkadelica



 * Code letter: C,E,&G


 * Supporting evidence: Pinkadelica and Darth Panda recently made the same edits to the Eve Torres page.Pinkadelica first made the edit and then Darth Panda made the same sdit after Pinkadelica made it 2 times.I belive that Darth Panda made the edit so Pinkadelica would not violate the 3rr rule.

both of them do is revert edits and give warrning eventhough they have no adminstrative power.they do this at the same time.somthing seems a little fishey.would some one please check this out.CMJMEM (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3


 * Comment The only thing fishy going on is this fishing expedition. For the record, I'm not Darth Panda, we're not in cahoots and, until today, I had no idea the user existed. The only thing the two of us are guilty of is using Huggle to revert some bad edits around the same time. CMJMEM repeatedly added information to the Eve Torres using a blog/gossip site (mediatakeout) as a source. I reverted the first edit while doing RC patrols and explained why in the edit summary. CMJMEM added it back twice and Darth Panda just happened to revert the edit the third time. If I had caught it, I would have reverted it 3RR or not, so the accusations of evading 3RR are completely unfounded. Removing poorly sourced content from a BLP is what we're suppose to do and any user can warn another user who is in violation of policy. CMJMEM was not barraged with warnings from me or Darth Panda either. We both warned him once for adding back the same poorly sourced content three times. While still on my Huggle adventure, I again reverted CMJMEM for removing content from the Layla El article without an explanation (didn't leave a warning for that either). CMJMEM removed it again and finally took advantage of using the edit summary. Lo and behold, I didn't revert that because (s)he explained why it was removed. End of...or so I thought. Following this, CMJMEM left a warning on my talk page for "vandalizing" the Layla El page to which I explained why I made the revert and that the warning was unwarranted. This report is, to put it mildly, a load of bull. It was filed in bad faith and is an attempt at retaliation for what CMJMEM perceives as personal slights. I have no problem with a checkuser being done on my account, but the results will be disappointing to anyone attempting to link me with any other user. Pinkadelica (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm. I don't remember ever working together or planning anything on Wikipedia... Feel free to checkuser me, as I assume that it will show my innocence in this situation. I am sure that both Pinkadelica and I were reverting vandalism, so we have done nothing in bad faith. I'm moderately insulted that CMJMEM seems to think that I'm the secondary account of someone who I have also never heard of before this incident. Darth Panda (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thatcher 02:26, 9 September 2008 (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.''