Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Babbarshair

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

Babbarshair





 * Code letter: C

This is claiming to be a new comer but seems to have alot of Wikipeida info and system information, involving in multiple POVs edition specially Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Artical and also involved in addition of an offensive Cartoon on this page, violating Wikipedia Policy. He may have a another account namely Mastiboy, as they both created almost same time, has same editing and writing style and level of knowledge. phippi46 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * there is no account registered to Babarshair, and hence no contributions. Did you mean another user? Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC) It was . Changed info above and moved case page. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I sense there's an alleged policy violation somewhere in this morass but I'm having trouble finding it. Permission granted for aggressive refactoring. Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note &bull; I have refactored the discussion, , to the talk page. Additional information needed &bull; phppi46, please provide diffs of serious, pattern vandalism in accordance with code letter C. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note &bull; &bull; More discussion refactored. Please note &bull; Unless you can supply diffs, the checkuser will not be performed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

- It was removed as Vandalism by user:Nazli, but added again by the user:babbarshair again in next days. - A POV section included and worked by user babbarshair, including material from copyright material from a website which is consider highly controversial from some addition were made including Weasel Wording and POV statements again to the section again material from the copyright Procted website.
 * As I stated earlier that user:babbarshair added many time multiple POVs and Copyright Protected Material in the Artical and in the sections for example addition of Offensive Cartoon to the artical.

Here user babbarshair removed the lines added by user:nazli which were written to neutralised the POVs statement by user Babbarshair again

It is clear that after addition of POVs statements and offensive cartoon to Artical was encourging enough for other user like user:rosheni to include the same POV statement mostely from a highly conterversial website which is known for its Biased nature. 2nd the Material was included in violation of Copyright Laws as this material is copyright procted and stated on the bottom of this website. Pls see

Here on the talk page of user:mastiboy I wrote that I know about the information that he gave and, but later user:babbarshair replied and asked about what I am talking about !! and the reply from him which I suspect that either of them sockpuppet account

As it is clear from above, that from 6th of January 2007, the addition of offensive cartoon and POVs additions are begined by user:babbarshair and after that a whole pendorabox was opend which demaged the neutrality of this Artical. It is no doubt strange to see two new commers, where their account were created almost same time were given Barnstars on the "nice work" done and since then as the matter was taken to Checkuser page, the user:mastiboy is no where to see. It is requested to conduct the Case/babbarshair for possible Sockpuppet case and IP Check in order to clear the matter. regards phippi46 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments: Note of dissent & Final remarks
 * Its not a POV disupte resolution page. He has seriously accused User:Babbarshair & User:Mastiboy for code-C (Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism) on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad page. It is interesting to see that Mastiboy has only one edit on that page which was to add section back to article, which the accuser repeatedily deleted (Check User:Mastiboy edit history for confirmation). I don't see how does it qulify for Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism charge. --Babbarshair 19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

--Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks and I appreciate --Babbarshair 19:30, 14 January 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.''