Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RCSIRCSIRCSI
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
RCSIRCSIRCSI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Bme diddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
193.1.229.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cquan 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Ongoing edit dispute on Biomedical engineering. User:RCSIRCSIRCSI wishes to include rankings, and actually only one ranking about his alma mater, Johns Hopkins, on the article under the education section. I reverted the edit [1], and back and forth reverts continued [2] despite a discussion present on the talk page, [3] where two editors besides myself agreed that the content shouldn't be included for multiple reasons[4]. Reverts and entries on the talk page by User:RCSIRCSIRCSI stopped and were replaced by a revert by anon IP 193.1.229.15, which frequently edits RCSIRCSIRCSI's talk page and seems to follow similar editing patterns, see [5] and [6], compare to [7]. Also, a new account was created after RCSIRCSIRCSI stopped reverting, [8], the User:Bme diddy only editing in regards to this dispute [9]. In total, this is far beyond 3RR.
- Addendum: Now, the user has raised a sockpuppet case against me, [10] with a bad copy/paste job of the evidence I have presented. Also, User:RCSIRCSIRCSI placed the sockpuppet warning on my talk page, [11], but User:Bme diddy added the warning to the my "accused sockpuppet", User:Grey Knight 1ce, here [12].
- Comments
RCSIRCSIRCSI has repeatedly dismissed the opinions of other editors and in this case there is some level of consensus against. The user has also been less than civil on at least one occasion [13]. This dispute is ongoing and I would like to have more editors contribute to the discussion before this content is allowed to remain on the article.
- Conclusions
RCSIRCSIRCSI blocked 48h, sock blocked indef. – Steel 21:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]