sockpuppets on Physician edit
Thank you for reverting these edits.
I don' know why, but this article attracts lots of anonymous editors who like to delete without any explanation. I have asked a sysop (User:Shii) to semiprotect the article -- he did this a month ago.
About 15 kilobytes (3/7 of the then total), including 2 large subsections, kept on being deleted by an apparent User:Nq0x77. One of the subsections (Other designations) has been in the article largely unchanged for well over a year; the wording here was earlier the subject of much discussion & editing because it concerned potentially controversial matters, but this was apparently resolved. When I tried Nq0x77's page to ask why, there was'nt one! No explanation of why the deletions are wise is shown on the Talk page. I've restored the article to the version left by User:Cubs197 earlier today, and you restored a further revert. The article has (or had)reached B class status, and is rated as top-importance, so I suggest major edits may merit at least some discussion, and I couldn't do this because User:Nq0x77 doesn't seem to be available.
- User:Shii wrote to me: just blocked the sockpuppet instead. Shii (tock) 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC), and I have just replied: Thank you very much but, sadly, I think the same person is at it again, this time using a new and different sockpuppet (User: Pednursing ?), who has just made the same ~15kb deletion. Would semi-protect status stop this, or at least make it harder for him/her/it?
--DavidB 06:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
David I'll reply on my page, since it seems to be the thing to do. I'm not an admin, as you may know, was just on an anti-vandal patrol. That was a stubborn one! Agree that it smelled heavily of sock. Not sure what their problem is. I'll keep an eye on this page to help out. Jusdafax 07:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)