Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MissOrgum1996

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MissOrgum1996}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).

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

MissOrgum1996

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 11:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

MissOrgum1996 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Code letter:C and G

Supporting evidence: This user has been engaging in a bizarre pattern of attacks, based around the assertion that inclusion of factual news in an article about the 2012 Summer Olympics is advocating terrorism.

Diffs of pre-block behaviour: rude, rude, slightly misleading edit summ, deleted entire thread, incl comments by two other editors, highly misleading edit summary; deletion of another editor's statements, misleading edit summary; deleted another editor's comments, misleading edit summary; claimed grammar, actually removing entire sentence, misleading edit summary; claimed 'changed word'--removed sentence, also edit-warring from here to here, after being warned re: 3RR. Plus an edit here, after the block expired, and after saying she would seek compromise on the talk page. Her own talk page was blanked; diff here; new warnings have been placed on her talk page.

Further disruption is located inappropriately here, here, here, and here, including accusations of racism. Accusations of sockpuppetry and 'advocating terrorism' are sprinkles throughout these links.

As Gordonofcartoon alluded to here, it beggars belief that someone who claims to be "new to the Wiki game" could have such intimate knowledge of so many different noticeboards to bring up disputes, while remaining ignorant of policies such as WP:Civil, WP:Talk, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:V. Kbthompson suggested here and here that a checkuser would be "handy" so we can be either vindicated in assuming good faith as all editors involved have tried to do, or have a better idea what we are dealing with. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 11:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - I'm not seeing any evidence of abuse of multiple accounts here, and especially no need to discuss nor reveal IP addresses;

CheckUser is not for fishing - Alison ^❤ 11:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enuff. I guess I was thinking of looking for prior evidence of disruption, but I was mistaken. Kbthompson (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok. Thank you. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 12:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.