Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Displaced Brit (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 19 August 2006 (→‎New requests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

←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 // ~~~~
    Considering the sensitive nature of WP:BLP articles, this IP's (and that of other anon editors) actions are a concern for a couple of reasons. 1.) You can not conclusively discern whether or not these editors are actually the subject of the article as they claim. They could be claiming to act on Jim's behalf and contribute an edit that is used in legal proceedings against Wikipedia by the real Jim Hawkins (as a couple of these IP anons have already threaten). 2.) If any of these anon IPs do indeed represent Jim Hawkins then we then have a violation of WP:Auto. In this "childish" edit war, we do not have the subject correcting inaccuracies about himself but instead substituting an informal tone in place of a formal encyclopedic one.Agne 10:54, 19 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.

    New requests

    • CFIF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- This user has a history of abusive behaviour, branding those who he disagrees with as sockpuppets, stalkers, uncivil, etc. He then gets various administrators involved in his attack campaign, all whilst playing the victim. It seems almost if this user has a great parinoia, which is leading to his/her track record of jumping to conclusions and accusing people in deletion votes of bad behaviour in order to attempt to skew the vote in favour of his position. He also makes threats to users that he will call them on the carpet through one of the various Wikipedia reporting systems. This user represents some of the worst of Wikipedia, acting as if it was a clique and he/she is the arbiter of who can join. It also should be noted that this user desires to be an administrator, something which if it was to occur would most likely cause more harm than good as this user's history is filled with prior bad acts. Displaced Brit 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Going2race (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) along with a suspected sockpuppet, Prototypical have been distruptively announced that wikipedia is a ran by pedophiles. diff. Since mulipule rules have been broken, I figured this is the best place to report this incident. -- Selmo 00:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what this is doing on this page, but here we go anyway: I've left warnings for clear cases of 3RR violations, personal attacks, and removing warnings. This user seems to believe that placing a standard form warning on his talk page is an "attack" and reverting after he deletes it "harassment". He claims I "stalked" him here from an external site, yet as far as I can tell he followed me here. I created the first of the articles he complained about, and began editing the second when I noticed that he had added a ridiculously POV statement to it, which I subsequently removed. He has persistently undermined efforts to improve either of these articles, going against established consensus of multiple contributors (whom he insists on calling a "cabal" without evidence of any form of cooperation... because there is none).
    He labels me here as a vandal, but he cannot point to anything other than contributions that are designed to improved the quality of wikipedia. This complaint was issued in retaliation for my prior complaint about a 3RR violation. JulesH 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When I remove an invalid source, he puts it back and accuses me of a crime. Three reverts from him are fine, but three from me aren't? He followed me here from Making Light which is the main source, and a blog, for both articles. No matter how many times Will Beback corrects the article he reverts. He wrote it for vengeance against this individual, Barbara Bauer, who doesn't deserve a page in the first place. He now defends the page againt all attempts at removing bias. He has no sources, and moderators have repeatedly said so. He refuses to cooperate, thus it is he that is in violation not I. I removed bias, he puts it back in because these are his online forum friends. Anyone not in the that sci-fi club forum can see it easily.Marky48 19:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty certain there are no occasions where I've reverted 3 times in a day. I haven't had to: there are five editors at Barbara Bauer and four at Disemvowelling who all disagree with the changes Marky48 is making. The last time User:Will Beback edited the page in question (this version), he left the information that Marky48 has been repeatedly removing in the page. I have not reverted any changes that Will Beback has made, except when additional sources have been located that have turned unverefiable content into verifiable content. Marky48 insists that everything happening is because we're ganging up against him, despite the fact that a mediator that User:Mavarin asked to step in clearly didn't see his side of the argument in quite the same way he does. JulesH 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • RAMistheMAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been constantly reinserting a photo of less than stellar quality. When a replacement of said photo was added to the D-Generation X article, he continually reverts to the less clear image. He has been warned several times by myself and a couple of other users, and he even went as far as to call me a dumbass in an unsigned comment on my user page. Because he keeps recieving warnings about reverts, he now deletes the photo out of spite whenever he has the chance. Nothing seems to be able to stop his immature handling of the situation, so I humbly ask you to step in. --CmdrClow 09:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Demfourlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the vandal I believe responsible for over 150 vandalism edits so far on a number of pages, notably to the topical Fidel Castro page. Some of the vandalism is of an obscene nature such as on the the Ricardo Alarcon page. I believe this is achieved via ranging IP addresses. He/she has challenged administrators stating that he will change articles a 1000s of times "if neccessary". Fuller details of the case, diffs and evidence that the user Demfourlife is the vandal can be found here [3]. Other offences include numerous uncivil personal attacks on editors and admins as well as harrassment of other editors user pages. Blocks on the many IP addresses have had no effect. --Zleitzen 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    and also possibly Cutefuzziebear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This seems to be her newest username. --Jane8888 01:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask again for this to be investigated? I'm continuing to get bother by this user and the likely socks. --Kiand 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think making immediate speedy deletion requests on TV news personalities, similar to what the sockpuppets are doing, makes you suspicious. You seem to know Wiki-process too well to be a newbie. --CFIF (talk to me) 02:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the instructions and I mean a newbie to posting and not reading. You seem to be pointing fingers without proof other than someone else acted that way once before. I am sorry if I asked that your articles should be deleted, but I thought this is how things work here. You must stop being so suspicious of things, it is not a healthy way to be and you may engage in witch hunts. We all see what we want to see and I have looked at your contributions, the same brush you are tarring me with, and you seem to be suspicious of anyone that does not agree with you. José is Fluid 04:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He also branded User:JianLi as a sockpuppet as well. It seems anyone who disagrees with him or wants to delete articles that he worked on is automatically a sockpuppeet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. It is almost as if CFIF is suffering from a parinoia. José is Fluid 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If that were the least bit true there are plenty of users I would have branded as sockpuppets a long time ago. But it simply isn't true. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CFIF, I believe you rushed to judgement in labeling me a sockpuppet. You based that decision based on my inclination to nominate for deletion certain articles, and to call them "crufty", which are characteristics shared by another user. However, I started using that word after reading it in the comments of other users (some of which may have been true sockpuppets); I adopted the word, being new to AfD's, because I thought that it was commonly used. Also, if you would just check my IP address, you will see I do not share one with any other user. If you just look at my (Special:Contributions/JianLi), you will see that my account existed long before i started participating in AFDs and I made hundreds of substantial edits before I started participating in AFDs. You have done very little to assume good faith. I have been merely trying to improve Wikipedia, as you can see from my many edits. You actions have seriously discouraged my future participation. JianLi 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I may have rushed to judgement with you, but Jose is Fluid is a whole other story. New user who puts tv-bio articles up for speedy is verrry suspicious. --CFIF (talk to me) 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you rush to judgement? Why must you be so hateful and filled with parinoia? Is there something wrong with finding articles and saying they should be deleted? I didn't fully understand the deletion process and should have used the AFD mechanism and User:Wknight94 has educated me on the proper mechanism. I understand if you are defensive about articles that you have worked with, but there is no need to tar people or you will seem like someone who is a parinoid. I am guessing you are a nice person in real life, but you seem to be taking rash actions here and need to be taken to task for it. How do we know you are not this User:Spotteddogsdotorg and are saying other people are to make you not look like a suspect? I will not accuse you without real evidence, unlike what you did with me. José is Fluid 16:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This - User talk:Splash#Possible new Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet - is where User:CFIF has accused me on User:Splash's talk page of being a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. These two seem to have a shared paranoia between them. José is Fluid 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think any investigation of User:Splash should also be tied into User:CFIF, since they both seem to be the tag team for making accusations. This - User talk:Splash#Possible new Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet - is where User:CFIF has accused me on User:Splash's talk page of being a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. These two seem to have a shared paranoia between them. José is Fluid 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have conducted the necessary investigation and concluded that Jose is Fluid is almost certainly a sockpuppet as described, being used in the now-familiar manner. I have indefinitely blocked him/her as a result. -Splash - tk 19:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      That's nice. I'm not a sock puppet and I would still like some of your recent bans investigated.--Crossmr 21:33, 3 August 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 [5]. 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) [6]. 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 [7] and [8]. 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 [9] and [10] 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[11] My response at 1300 hrs 26th July-[12].

    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 [13] 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[14] My response at 1300 hrs 26th July-[15].

    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 [16]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 [17] 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]

    Another attack fron Danianjan:

    Whether or not you care to pay attention to these "threats" is a comment on your brain-size. This after making threats for "getting me blocked" when I edited Shiv Sena article and backed edits made by Nobleeagle.Netaji 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I never say that "Netaji, since you didn't pay attention to my earlier "threats," you are a pea-brained monkey." Netaji is clearly converting this into a personal attack. Also, Netaji never mentions this statement in which he used vulgar language on the Talk:Shiv Sena page:

    "It's the rest of me thats pissed at this terrible article."--Wikindian 02:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)--Wikindian 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Under investigation

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&oldid=70604888"