Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Danianjan (talk | contribs)
1,326 edits
Line 49: Line 49:


*{{IPvandal|203.54.9.118}} I have lodged a request for comment against an editor using a range of IP addresses. I have been wholly supported to date in my actions against this editor. His behaviour is becoming increasingly bizarre and abusive - mainly against me but other editors too. He has been blocked by me and other editors (Longhair and Knowledge Seeker). He just logs on again. He has been specifically told that this is breach of policy. I would really like a review. I think a range block is appropriate but would need endorsement from other admins. I have yet to come across any signficant edits from other editors using IP addresses he has used. The RfC is at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*]]. Recent behaviour has been listed on the RfC's talk page. Most recent behaviour is {{userblock|203.54.9.118}} / {{userblock|203.54.9.235}} / {{userblock|203.54.9.166}} / {{userblock|203.54.186.141}} / {{userblock|203.54.9.154}} / {{userblock|203.54.186.221 }}. My actions can be reviewed {{admin|AYArktos}} and I am happy to receive feedback or advice as to what to do next. --[[User:AYArktos|A&nbsp;Y&nbsp;Arktos]]\<sup>[[User_talk:AYArktos|talk]]</sup> 11:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
*{{IPvandal|203.54.9.118}} I have lodged a request for comment against an editor using a range of IP addresses. I have been wholly supported to date in my actions against this editor. His behaviour is becoming increasingly bizarre and abusive - mainly against me but other editors too. He has been blocked by me and other editors (Longhair and Knowledge Seeker). He just logs on again. He has been specifically told that this is breach of policy. I would really like a review. I think a range block is appropriate but would need endorsement from other admins. I have yet to come across any signficant edits from other editors using IP addresses he has used. The RfC is at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*]]. Recent behaviour has been listed on the RfC's talk page. Most recent behaviour is {{userblock|203.54.9.118}} / {{userblock|203.54.9.235}} / {{userblock|203.54.9.166}} / {{userblock|203.54.186.141}} / {{userblock|203.54.9.154}} / {{userblock|203.54.186.221 }}. My actions can be reviewed {{admin|AYArktos}} and I am happy to receive feedback or advice as to what to do next. --[[User:AYArktos|A&nbsp;Y&nbsp;Arktos]]\<sup>[[User_talk:AYArktos|talk]]</sup> 11:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
::Recent behaviour of the editor operating from this and many other IPs is at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*]]. I would really appreciate some feedback as to whether the approach I have outlined at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*#Statement of AYArktos' intended ongoing reponse to this editor]] is OK or not. I just don't feel [[Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down|a cup of tea is going to work for me in dealing with this editor]]. I have just been accused for the umptieth time of being a bully[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wiradjuri&diff=67148793&oldid=67120838] and I really would appreciate somebody else looking at this. Thanks--[[User:AYArktos|A&nbsp;Y&nbsp;Arktos]]\<sup>[[User_talk:AYArktos|talk]]</sup> 00:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


==Registered users==
==Registered users==

Revision as of 00:48, 2 August 2006

←Index of request pages Requests for investigation Archives (current)→
Shortcut
 This page allows users to request administrator investigation of certain types of abuse only. Do not use this page until you read the policies, guidelines, and procedures. For obvious vandalism, see Administrator intervention against vandalism. Alerts that do not belong on this page may be removed without action or notice.


    Watchlist

    • Report in this section:
    1. Articles being hit with a very high level of vandalism or that are repeatedly vandalised with an extended time before reverts.
    2. Registered users or IPs that have carried out clear vandalism but have currently stopped.
    • Do not report here:
    1. Articles featured on the front page, or very high profile articles - these will already be watched
    2. Vandals needing to be blocked - see WP:AIV instead.
    3. Users needing investigation - see one of the sections below.
    • Use the following format:
    * {{article|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ or
    * {{vandal|username}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ or
    * {{IPvandal|Ip_Address}} - brief explanation //~~~~

    Watchlist requests

    IP addresses

    Do not report obvious vandalism here; see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Only report IP addresses that are engaged in complicated, deceptive vandalism that will require more than a few moments for an administrator to analyse. Please read the policies, guidelines, and procedures before reporting.

    Requests

    Please use this format at the top of this section:

    *{{IPvandal|IP Address}} -- Brief Description // ~~~~
    Recent behaviour of the editor operating from this and many other IPs is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*. I would really appreciate some feedback as to whether the approach I have outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*#Statement of AYArktos' intended ongoing reponse to this editor is OK or not. I just don't feel a cup of tea is going to work for me in dealing with this editor. I have just been accused for the umptieth time of being a bully[1] and I really would appreciate somebody else looking at this. Thanks--A Y Arktos\talk 00:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Registered users

    Read the policies, guidelines, and procedures before reporting. Do not report content or user disputes here, unless you can provide links demonstrating a strong attempt at dispute resolution. Please use this format at the top of this section:

    * {{vandal|User_name}} -- Brief Description // ~~~~

    Usernames are case sensitive and please note that spaces in usernames need to be replaced by underscores (as shown in the example above).

    New requests

    • Neuropean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Editing my comments on my talk page and on the Ruth Kelly article talk page [2] - please also see subjects [3] where this user seems to relish his warnings and celebrate his begative behaviour. Several editors have considered this user less than a positive influence on WP. He also has a habit of delting comments by other editors from his talk page despite being told this is bad form. In the past 24 hours he has broken 3RR by reverting my comments on the Ruth Kelly talk page. This is all in addition to previous poor behaviour, Making a POint AfDs, bad faith nominations, etc. Robertsteadman 09:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      3RR rule not broken. See 3RR guidelines. First edit was refactoring. However, in reverting my edits three times, Mr Steadman has in fact broken 3RR. No vandalism of talk pages. Refactoring as per WP:NPA. Neuropean 22:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      This evening I have discovrered taht Neuropean has posted a spam link and when I removed it he immediately reverted it [4] claiming it was not spam. I have also removed a copyright violation that he started by copying out info from another website [5]. This is the second time I have asked for an RFi on this editor and am increasingly concerned that there is no chance of him becoming a useful and proiductive editor.Robertsteadman 21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I have also repeatedly asked this vandal and stalker to stop calling me Rob - something he is doinjg to deliberately wind me up - and yet he continues - this stalker seems to be out of control. He's made less than 200 edits - and so few of them are useful to the encyclopedia. Robertsteadman 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Now user: Neuropean has started a "new archive" on his talk page about me. [6]. This is getting ridiculous. Robertsteadman 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      And now he has put this on my talk page and his own talk page. There are several things wrong - I am not some of those other accounts, he has published where I live.... surely this should be blanked? Robertsteadman 06:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      And now he has vandalised Robert Steadman to make a point - [7] - this is getting ridiculous. Robertsteadman 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      And his latst vandalsim was to delete this RFI whioch I have restored. Robertsteadman 05:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I have asked and asked you not to stalk me but you have reused to stop. You complained that I had mentioned where you live, so I removed it. I thought that I'd remove the reference on your article just to make sure that you couldn't be identified. Now you accuse me of making libellous remarks. Just what have I said that is libellous?Neuropean 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: Oh for goodness sake! Could we have a 'little' perspective here please? How many times are you going to report me?* You complain about me making a copyvio mistake - have you yourself not been warned about copyvio re pictures?
      You do not like me calling you Rob, you asked twice. My next comment on the page did not contain 'Rob'. I don't know why you object anyway, your previous blocked username was Robsteadman wasn't it? You know the one that was permanently blocked by ArbCom for trollish behaviour and sockpuppetry! How you have the cheek to complain about being called Rob when I have asked you dozens of times to stop calling me 'sockpuppet' I don't know. You have even added the text 'vandal' when you give my username.Neuropean 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)* We disgree about the spam link and I have asked for the intervention of a neutral third party. What more can I do?[reply]
      I suggest that if you dislike my edits so much, you take me off your watchlist and stop following me around from article to article reverting my edits.* How do we decide what a 'productive' editor is? Is it someone who clutters up admin with a stream of RFIs RFCUs? Someone who generally takes up at least 50% of any discussion page/adminpage he edits on with personal attacks and consistently breaks the 'don't shoot the messenger' advice? Hmm. It's a tricky one isn't itNeuropean 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 70.81.117.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- This user has a history of inserting false information with regard to race/ethnicity in Canada/Canadians, most egregiously in the form of blatantly false statistics and misrepresenting government statistics (speculatively/subjectively interpreting them/doing original research). Most recent vandalism of this kind: [8] They were blocked several times in the past, and have slowed down this activity but it persists. I'm also concerned that they may have falsely added ethnic categories to hundreds of Canadian bio pages and were not reverted. I wasn't sure if I should report it to long term abuse (trying to figure out how exactly this whole system works). User stated on their talk page that they "have an account": [9] - no idea if true or what the user name is. heqs 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: 20:24, 13 July 2006 Yamla (Talk | contribs) blocked "70.81.117.175 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 months (Long-term vandalism) heqs 12:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, I checked out some of their edits, same type of stuff: misrepresenting census data and mass-adding ethnic categories to bio pages. Category:Scandinavian Canadians was deleted of course, but many instances of the "real" ethnic-Canadian categories mass-added to bio pages by this person will never be verifiable (many of them seem to be idly speculated by looking at the person's name, while others may be technically true, but just because you read somewhere that someone is of a certain ethnic heritage doesn't mean you get to decide what they would declare themselves as on a StatsCan census form, or otherwise identify as, etc). IMO this is a serious problem, ideally I think the user should be blocked and mass reverted. Thoughts? Does a checkuser need to be performed first? heqs 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bull-Doser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User first registered as User:Take Me Higher, and became very notorious for his poor pictures of cars, where they were either covered in snow, or taken from the back in bad condition or in bright sun. We would try to be nice and talk to him about his pictures and try to work the thing out, but he would just ignore us and upload more bad pics. We filed a RfC that he completely ignored, and he continued to ignore our advice/warnings. He uses his talk page for a blog, so we know he sees them, but perfers not to respond to them. After getting numerous warnings from us for our bad pics, he registered the account User:Bull-Doser hoping that we wouldn't know that it is him, so he wouldn't be bogged by us warning us about his pics. This failed however, as he continued to upload the same bad pics, and we easilly saw through it. This is when our patience with him ran out, as he continued to ignore our warnings. Every picture except for a few salvageable ones were removed from articles. Me, and two other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles agreed that at this point, we will step back and let the admins handle him, so here you go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrmann (talk • contribs)
      Comment: User:Bull-Doser is also overlinking dates and places, and reverting when we change his overlinking. He had the same behavior when he was User:Take Me Higher. He also reverts information on certain automotive infoboxes, thus making the articles region-centric instead of international. --Pc13 11:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Well Bull-Doser self-identifies as being Take Me Higher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so I don't think that's a problem, especially as only one account is being used. I realise it is frustrating to have to sort through the photos looking for the better ones, but as far as I know there is no actual policy against making less-than-perfect contributions if they don't fall under the definition of vandalism (these don't). Possibly disruption if there is edit warring involved- is that the case? I.e. does he ever dispute you removing his images from articles? Also please remember to stay civil in your messages. Petros471 12:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      A couple of times he disputed it, and sometimes he puts the images abck after we remove them. Karrmann 14:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I support Petros471, WP:CIVIL is official policy. And looking at his upload log, it appears that his recent contributions are of better quality. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I've also posted a notification of this discussion on Bull-Doser's talk, which will hopefully be better recieved because I am an uninvolved party. I also put civility reminders on DonIncognito and Karrmann's talks. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • GraalOnline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Graalonline is an online game. The staff of the game, Me (the manager of the game) and a group of player are trying to make a good article about the game but a group of player that have been banned from the game for cheating or not respecting rules are using this article to make personal attacks against Me, write false information about the game, advertise the forum where they organize illegal activities. The Article is always reverted, modified and all the false information are coming again and again. We have tried to discuss with them on the discussion page but this is not helping. Please help us because we are close to give up. Thanks a lot. Graal unixmad 09:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neurolinguistic programming Hello, the NLP article is not improving. An editor user FT2 is stopping all editors making the good improvements. Evidence: I make good edits and FT2 reverts because they do not promote NLP [17]. Even I make suggestions for improvement on talkpage only FT2 hides them and accuses me of being a known sockpuppet (no evidence and against sockpuppet recommendations of NPOV policy) [18]. There was a sockpuppeteer two months ago from Hong Kong that got banned. Now FT2 accuses all editors of being sockpuppets (me too) even if the checkuser does not say sockpuppet. The article will make no improvement with FT2 owning the article. Please send somebody to have a check. Hylas Chung 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    --Wikindian 17:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For being uncivil please check [19] and [20]. And for a person accusing others of anti semitism based just on others claiming a Jewish lobby being at work he has graphic direct attacks on Islam [21] and [22] Haphar 18:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Netaji further makes the claim below that he recieved warnings from me and responded, here is his warning on my talkpage, from the timestamp it is obvious who is provoking. Would further like to point out that this shows that the user is not averse to "stretching" the truth to get his point across. For his warning on my page at 1100 hrs 26th July-here[23] My response at 1300 hrs 26th July-[24].

    He has used language like "bubba", "India is a stinkhole" and "what's the f'ing problem" in discussions. He has also used an abusive sockpuppet in the past. Haphar 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He further accuses me of being anti semitic based on my saying that there seems to be a Jewish lobby at work in the U.S.A as per a paper written in the west recently. In his subsequent discussion even he has aknowledged that a "Jewish lobby" exists, though it is weak. So does that by his own logic also qualify him as anti semitic ? Haphar 20:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Danianjan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Wikindian has consistently been pejorative against myself and has used derogatory phrases like "disgusting" and "rhino-skinned chauvinist" to describe my content in the Talk:Shiv Sena page. I have warned him repeatedly , but he has responded with veiled slurs and epithets.I have pointed out anti-semitic canards used by his ally User:Haphar (the mythical "Jewish Lobby") here and have been the recipient of threats from both User:Haphar and User:Danianjan in my talk page. Please look here [25] and here. While I have unfortunately taken their bait on occassion and responded aggressively, User:Wikindian has continuously made derogatory remarks. When I tried to debate with them reasonably over article issues, they called me names and threatened admin action. I believe that this is blatantly uncivil behaviour, and I abjectly request Wikindian be investigated for consistent ad-hominem attacks and appropriate punitive measures be taken.

    --Netaji 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Netaji makes the claim above that he recieved warnings from me and responded, here is his warning on my talkpage, from the timestamp it is obvious who is provoking. Would further like to point out that this shows that the user is not averse to "stretching" the truth to get his point across. For his warning on my page at 1100 hrs 26th July-here[26] My response at 1300 hrs 26th July-[27].

    He has used language like "bubba", "India is a stinkhole" and "what's the f'ing problem" in discussions. He has also used an abusive sockpuppet in the past. Haphar 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He further accuses me of being anti semitic based on my saying that there seems to be a Jewish lobby at work in the U.S.A as per a paper written in the west recently. In his subsequent discussion even he has acknowledged that a "Jewish lobby" exists, though it is weak. So does that by his own logic also qualify him as anti semitic ? He continues to use the term in multiple discussions with him despite my repeatedly mentioning that I have no issues with Jews. He makes pronuncements and passes judgements . Where he does not have logic he resorts to baiting and veiled as well as direct barbs ( ie your self hatred is understandable, got it bubba Nein mein freund ) are just some of these attempts. Haphar 20:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between an Israel lobby and a Jewish lobby. I have only mentioned Israel lobby. The fact that Haphar merges the two is another indication of anti-semitism and ensuing bias associated with it. Both ADL and AJC classify equating the AIPAC lobby with the mythical 'Jewish Lobby' as an anti-semitic statement. It has thus clearly been established that user Haphar is anti-semitic. Please see warnings from user nobleeagle on the Hindutva talk page. Both user Haphar and user Danianjan (who I suspect may be sock puppets of the same user) have consistently vandalized all of my edits and used extremely derogatory and insulting language in the talk pages, calling me 'disgusting' and 'chauvinist' ,'rhino-skinned' and 'jaundiced' in the talk page on Hindutva (that the arbitrator can access using the contrib links for the two users in question). In addition, both users have engaged in repeated slander and defamation in my user talk page (presently archived). Finally, they have engaged in a coordinated campaign of character assassination with the help of user Lkadvani in his talk page.Netaji 11:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Subhash Bose is not the world's authority on deciding who is anti anything. ADL [28]and AJC DO NOT have a description of what is anti semetic. So where is the "classification by ADL and AJC" of what is anti semetism ? There has been no talk of an Isreali lobby by me- User Subhash Bose just mentioned both above. Again by his own logic he is anti semetic. These are the spurious attempts at logic, and if he is so confident that Wikindian and I are sockpuppets he can get a user check done ( please note he himself has been a proven sockpuppeteer, of an insulting one to boot, and he has lied about that too.) He has not placed any checkuser request for us, for he knows his claim is spurious. There is no reference and talk of AIPAC lobby in any of my discussions, there is a talk of a paper published recently that has been in my discussions. but then Netaji has been a sockpuppeteer and has lied in the past too. Haphar 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ADL hosted programs on CSPAN where they clearly defined claims of "Jewish Lobby" as anti-semitic. If the reader digs deeper into adl's website he will find confirmation of this. Haphar has constantly harped on the "Jewish Lobby". His obsession with this issue is another indication of anti-semitism.Netaji 19:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh then I can call people names based on what I saw on TV or heard on the radio. Extremely encyclopaedic way indeed of making a claim - "I heard it on my radio " ( Sung out to the tune of radio ga ga), The line to shut all discourse. Well Netaji has been writing all over town about Hinduism, So as per him obsession = anti, that makes him anti Hindu ? And on the Jewish issue, he raises and I respond, so that makes him equally obsessed as me on it, so third bit of his logic proving him to be anti semetic. Three strikes, you are out- report yourself to the ADL and AJC. Haphar 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also his talk of language is rich looking at the language he has used.

    Also, Netaji has resorted to threats on my talk page also, according to his own logic. In fact, his language is much more threatening than mine. About the so called pejorative remarks: rhino-skinned and disgusting are not offensive words, I think (Netaji himself found disgusting useful in his recent post on the Talk:Hindutva page). Netaji claims that he has "unfortunately taken bait on occassion." This belies his use of blatantly vulgar words like "honkey-a** liberal," and frequent references to me being a terrorist-worshiper. I threatened Netaji with action for this very reason, and not in the spirit of bossing as he claims. He is intentionally confusing the matter for his own advantage. Moreover, "chauvinist," and "jaundiced" are also not vulgar words, if you look up the dictionary. About character assassination with Lkadvani: Frankly, I don't know what Netaji's designs are in this case.--Wikindian 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    On another note, I never described Netaji's views as "jaundiced." He is making an assumption. As for the "chauvinistic," that I frequently use, anyone who has been keeping pace with editing the Shiv Sena article will understand the purport of this word. I do believe that Netaji's edits are almost always chauvinistic pro-Sena bias, I find no other way to describe them. Also, the arbitrator needs to go the archives on the User Talk:Subhash bose page and see the discussion titled "Still Homesick?" for evidence of Netaji's blatant language.--Wikindian 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If my edits are pro-sena then Wikindian's edits are exclusively defamatory and anti-Sena. He is a hater. I find no other way to describe him either.The discussion "Still Homesich?" was started in an insulting manner by Wikindian.Netaji 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am anti-Sena for the most part, but I have provided proper references every time I insert new information, unlike you. You simply refuse to confess that your references were inacruate and for the most part irrelevant to the article. That is why I posted a lot of so called "pejorative attacks" because I wanted you to understand that your content ignores scholarship and the history of Sena's activities. Instead, you try to twist the facts in order to make the Sena appear like some kind of a Shivaji party. It is sad that you are being so unrelenting in accepting your mistakes. --Wikindian 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In his most recent post in Talk:Shiv Sena, Neta writes "Try any monkey business and I'll just revert it back." No doubts of this being yet another personal attack from Netaji again. He can lecture all he wants, but when it comes to following his lecture, he not surprisingly fails.--Wikindian 23:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More personal attacks from Wikindian here. in 'Still Homesick' Danianjan was the instigator of the personal attack.Netaji 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This post is a warning to Netaji to monitor the quality of language, and shun from using words like "excreting hate." Otherwise, he might not be able to access Wikipedia because he might be blocked. That is all that I wanted to say. Never mind that Netaji converted it into a personal attack.

    --Wikindian 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Wikindian has himself used similar words in the past. last time I checked the dictionary, "excreting" is not an offensive word either.Netaji 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The manner in which you phrase is certainly offensive, Neta. --Wikindian 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof that he has been engaging in POV editing and insulting those who correct it:

    Subhash, Your claims are laughbable. This is an article attacking the BJP-Sena government, not defending it

    here in SS talk page. Implying that he has been introducing POV. Since when is a wikipedia article supposed to attack anybody?Netaji 18:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Plus, Danianjan has been consistetly making accusations and deleting information that I have supported with references. Instead of arguing sensibly, he has resorted to insulting and hateful language. Then he backpedals and starts using the third person to continue his tirades. It seems that verbal bullying and personal attacks are his modus operandii when he can't support an argument. These people say that conservatives do such things, but they're the bigger experts.Netaji 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those claims were laughable, how else can you describe them with a limited vocabulary? How does that amount to personal attack? The arbitatror should go through the entire history of editing this article very carefully for proper perspective. --Wikindian 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And Wikindian's claims "excrete hate" also. I do not know a better way to describe them either.Netaji 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a gulf of a difference between the two phrases. There was no excretion involved in this case, but you used this word obviously because you wanted to launch a personal attack. --Wikindian 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At best, this is POV-pushing. At worst, an ad-hominem attack.Netaji 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attack from User Haphar

    "Now your lack of sense makes sense", from my talk page.Netaji 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's tragic that you could find only this to substantiate your attempt to claim personal attacks, but this was in response of you accusing me of no sense and temper tantrums. Haphar 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anti-Semitic statement from User Haphar

    From no Jewish loby to weak jewish lobby , "I have talked of a Jewsish Lobby" (admitting to anti-semitism) - here when I clearly said 'Israeli lobby'. Association of AIPAC with a (nonexistent) Jewish conspiracy is clearly anti-semitism.Netaji 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is so funny, let me claim that accusing X of anti semetism 5 times is an action of a covert paedophile, claim it is common knowledge and refer to websites that do not have this mentioned , when challenged or pointed out that the website does not have this mentioned, I then say I saw it on Aastha channel. Haphar 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how using the word "Jewish lobby" is anti-semetic. If he provides proper reason and facts for any anti-Jewish statements, then he has all right to use words like these. --Wikindian 16:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Jewish Lobby" is a mythical construct created by anti-semites and almost invariably touted by anti-semites or those who have been brainwashed by anti-semites and consequently have themselves turned anti-semitic. Either way Haphar's anti-semitism, whether deliberate or transferred from a madrassa or Neo-nazi literature somewhere, has been clearly established.Netaji 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Says who ? Where is the proof that this is Mythical ? Saying that the Jews are responsible for 9/11 is an interpretation of "Jewish lobby" that is anti semetic. Not a discussion on a Harvard paper ( which counts more than opinions of students in Universities) I brought in the topic with a reference, here are more links through google ([ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jewish+Lobby+paper&btnG=Google+Search]) Anti-semeticin wiki itself has a great level of detail, but none of the outlandish theroies that Netaji has said. Even his much vaunted ADL and AJC [29] do not have this on their websites. ( This he claims is because he saw it on C Span. Like I saw it on Jaya TV that someone is a Grand wizard of the Austin chapter of the KKK). Go chase Mel Gibson and your much loved Right wing Christianity that does not quite love Israel as much as you would have us beleive. Haphar 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And "transferred from a madrassa or Neo nazi literature" is not offensive ? This from a guy who finds "your lack of sense makes no sense " offensive (And the only thing he could find offensive, whereas this was in response to him saying you are making no sense and indulging in temper tantrums).Haphar 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Moreover, Netaji's anti-Muslim statements are much more hateful than Haphar's. It is quite hippocritical of Netaji to accuse someone else of being anti-Jewish when he himself has has history of spewing intense hatred for Muslims. Why hasn't Netaji complained against himself? --Wikindian 22:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A non-sequitur. Wikindian's personal attacks, incivility and Haphar's constant gang-ups and his anti-semitism are the issues here.Netaji 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    According to that same logic, I would like to launch a complaint against you for your blatantly anti-Muslim statements. --Wikindian 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Under investigation

    • WIN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - For months this user has been posting long diatribes to the Talk page Indo-Aryan migration, treating the page as if it is a discussion forum to decide the truth of the theory. He constantly claims the theory is wrong with links to amateur websites to back him up, terrible English, and an unwillingness to listen to anyone. When told that the Talk page is to be used for creating consensus on scholarly opinion sourced from reputable places outside Wikipedia, and not a place to settle controversial theories, he has just ignored these warnings. I've starting reverted his additions outright as vandalism, with support from other users, but I just can't keep up with this guy. Please, look at his edit history for this Talk page, he's never made a productive edit, just endless rants. Make it stop. CRCulver 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Warned for disruption. Petros471 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&oldid=67149629"