(Copied from Baka's talk page)He Baka, thanks for your attention on this matter. Actually I had watching Zafarnama's edits for a long time. It amazes me that after all personal attacks and POV edits he has the audacity of making that report. I also just noticed that he has been blocked earlier for his reverts on the Khalistan page. Anyway...thanks a lot and keep up the good work. Here are few more edits by Zafarnamah:
Zafarnamah's diffs:
It seems that you made a critical comment about Islam sometime back. You are entitled to your views, but its most advisable to keep any discussion not concerning Wikipedia off Wikipedia. Keep focus on WP work, for such comments can and will offend others and disrupt Wikipedia. Rama's arrow22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Suggesting that you are anti-Semitic is not a personal attack." What is it then? My disliking of the state of Israel does not equate to a disliking of Jews in general. If you continue to suggest so, I will take this further, so please refrain. Thanks. BhaiSaabtalk00:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but assuming I'm anti-semitic based on some arbitrary statistical probability is no excuse. I interact with Jews quite well and often, but thanks for the suggestion. BhaiSaabtalk00:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subhase bose, you may be overreacting common stereotypes and prejudices. Please do not accuse others without concrete evidence, like any anti-Jewish comments or major personal attacks against Jews. And please do tag others as being anti-This and That, since all users harbor strong beliefs and emotions. Whether they show it in their edits is their choice. From you edits, comments, and even userpage, I have even noticed that you have your own strong beliefs that strong affect your edits. Mar de SinSpeak up!00:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HRW may not be a 100% neutral source, but it is a reliable one. I have made sure to reword what they say, in a NPOV manner, and that's what matters. Just because it's not neutral doesn't mean it's not reliable Actually, it is quite difficult to find a 100% neutral source since most sources have bias. Mar de SinSpeak up!00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be nice
Please do not make any more attacks regarding what may or may not happen in the Middle East, the negative view of Islam and Muslims that you have, or anything else uncivil. I am not going to give you a warning, but will only ask you to be as kind as possible, from now on. Thank you very much, Mar de SinSpeak up!01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thanks for your concerns on Anonymous editor's talkpage. Sorry if you feel like I'm trying to incriminate you, but my concerns there were because Haphar's concerns were not answered. Please feel free to ask any assistance or even to say hi on my talk page, and thanks for all of your concerns. बहुत बहुत थैंक्यू --Mar de SinSpeak up!02:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Syiem's reply
You have my full support. I will be there. You are doing a great job pal...keep up the good work. You will find plenty of support. The world is surviving because sane people far outnumber the insane ones. Syiem03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you'll be back once this paranoid accusation of sockpuppetry gets cleared up. Where are you from, anyway? If it's outside Austin then the Apache webserver logs should show different domains for yours and my ip addresses and that should clear things up.Netaji04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand. The sentence you deleted stated that Muslims are the majority and are being persecuted by the Hindus but then you delete the sentence under the same premise. Sorry for the ignorance but are you stating that the Hindus are being persecuted by the Muslim majority?I already forgot05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have a predilection of watching each other.
Citations have been provided... its a controversial statement by Sreekumar, hence under this section. Lets keep our gut feelings about incidents out and speak of the facts. --Geek197510:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please
Please stop making edit summaries such as the ones corresponding to this edit and this edit. You have been blocked for violating civility policies in the past. So you should know better. If you continue, you will be blocked again. --Woohookitty(meow)10:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reread the article 3 times along with Geek1975's addition to the article. I can see your point, but to me, this doesn't read like vandalism. And honestly, I'm not sure what Geek1975's first language is but if it isn't English, then I can see where he could get confused and see where the article is saying what he thinks it is saying. I mean. English is my only language and yet it took several readings for me to see what you are saying and I'm a college graduate. :) --Woohookitty(meow)11:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is to just be careful. You are close to breaking 3RR on that article if you don't consider Geek1975's edits to be vandalism. You've had enough blocks recently that I wouldn't even risk it if I were you. --Woohookitty(meow)11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just Neta's style- People whose POV is different from his own end up with some name or the other, and accused of vandalism.- Not based on facts but just anything to needle them. Haphar11:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was put in as a response to Neta calling me a vandal for removing an line which did not have credible references. In fact he has since attempted to put more credible references in the Indian Nationalism article, which shows he knows that the issue is not vandalism. So if there is anyone making a personal attack it was Neta, and he is being warned for the same here. He has also deleted my response below to his comments, which is also not done, and which is not the first time he has done it. Consider this warning no 1, Haphar11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The correct procedure in the case of source dispute is to put a fact tag. You deleted it. That's vandalism. My warning stands. Your warning is bogus as always.Netaji11:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All what has been posted in 2006 riots is substantiated with citations... u have a problem with that then talk about it in its talk page... do not take liberty of threatening me directly in my talk page... are we understood??? My post is far from vandalism... on the other hand your are persisting with your threats... u like facts... I gave u facts... too hard for u to swallow its hardly my business.. --Geek197511:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just what are u trying to put up I am unable to follow... army was not deployed in a timely fashion... what I have posted is just that... why do u have so much problem with facts that implicate the state govt? --Geek197511:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated warnings and lack of understanding
Reverting your "claim" backed by a dubious website is not vandalism. Please learn what vandalism is. Your warnings are not as per wiki ettiquette, please refrain from issuing warnings when there is a difference of opinion. Haphar 11:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from deleting comments left on your page Haphar 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Please understand that someone removing poorly referenced lines in an article is not a vandal if his POV is different from yours.
Please do not give warnings or accuse whenever someone has a POV different from yours. You have reacted to the deletion comments which shows you do not consider it vandaslism and you continue to insinuate that it is vandalsim as well as an experiment. Your accusations and language are not civil, please keep them so. Haphar12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments are a response to your bogus warning. also the onus of citing is if there is no reference, where the reference is not credible there is no "citation" required. Haphar12:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sockpuppetry accusation is COMPLETELY BOGUS!!! Syien and that other guy ARE NOT MY SOCKPUPPETS! This is garbage. I had never even HEARD of these people prior to yesterday!!!Netaji19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not my sockpuppets! This is a campaign against me by BhaiSaab, Haphar and CiteCop who have an axe to grind against me!.Netaji19:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
User Syiem IS NOT MY SOCKPUPPET! Neither is RSudarshan. I've never even HEARD of this new user until YESTERDAY!!!! This is part of a deliberate campaign of lies against me by users with an axe to grind. Please intervene. This is part of the agenda of a cabal of users. The only reason why I edit the same article as these users is because we looked at each others contribs page and decided to fix distortions put there by fundamentalists and racist anti-Hindus, that's all. Netaji19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Until the RFCU result comes back, you will remain blocked. Even if they are proved not to be your sockpuppets, I will apologise, but your block will be reduced to one week. Iolakana•T20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Bring. It. On. Then I can report to the admin how, completely unprovoked, you insinuated that I was either a White Nationalist, a Fundamentalist Muslim, or a Marxist[8] and how you repeatedly engage in inappropriate or misinterpreted citations.[9][10][11][12][13] So yeah, let's bring in the authorities. With any luck, you'll get blocked for a month this time.
And you know something else, there's no "deliberate campaign" by a "cabal of users" against you. Until yesterday, I had never even HEARD of you, or BhaiSaab, or Haphar. You didn't know me from Adam and you implied that I was either a White Nationalist, a Fundamentalist Muslim, or a Marxist. Do you expect to make friends that way? Doesn't it tell you something that in the space of one day you received two week long bans for your activities on two different pages?
If I were a "racist anti-Hindu," why would I have provided that citation that credited Kanada with atomism? Unlike you, with your Indian nationalist POV, I care about accuracy and verifiability. That's why I look for the best possible sources, such as those two books on zero, and provide relevant quotations on the talk page. So readers know that the sources say what I say they do, unlike you, who either lies about what sources say[14][15][16] or cites dubious ones.[17]
Do you honestly think that magic crystal lady[18] is a better source than a prize-winning science journalist and a Harvard mathematician who knows Greek and Sanskrit?
"Magic crystal lady" is as reliable as potential white supremacists in academia with an agenda against Indians because they can;t stand our successes in the west.Netaji23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of Abraham Foxman of the anti-Defamation league: "There is something sick in Academia". These so-called "Academics" in their zoos that they call 'departments' make up all sorts of crap and nonsense that target specific ethnic groups. Like that Mearshimer and Walt thing, where two anti-semites resurrected old blood libels by writing a "paper" suggesting the patent falsehood that Jews secretly "control America" and are trying to "direct US foreign policy" for the benefit of Israel. Now these types of "academics" have turned on Hindus. Not surprising considering we are working hard in this country and trying to achieve success like the Jewish communities. That is why they turn on us. They can't stand the fact that "non-Aryan" races can do just as well, if not better, than they can.Netaji02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is, you brought this upon yourself and you have no one to blame but yourself. And whether your ban lasts one week or two, you'll have deserved every second of it.
After the block expires, I will be reporting you for vandalism, personal attacks and insults, and other infractions also.Netaji22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm anti-Hindu? I'm the one who supplied a citation for "During [Aurangzeb's] reign, many Hindu temples were defaced and destroyed, and many non-Muslims converted to Islam."[19] And not from some website, from a book—you know, those piles of paper that are glued together on one side—by a history professor at Duke published by the Cambridge University Press. And I added Munda to "the languages that India is home to".[20]
You've already called me a Fundamentalist Muslim White Nationalist Marxist. "Anti-Hindu" makes slur number 4. And I have little doubt you'll go for 5. CiteCop23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did nothing of the sort. Merely stated that the canards you use are the same as the canards used by WN people, Marxists and Muslim Fundamentalists (who have ideologically allied with White Nationalists, read about August Kreis and the admiration of muslim terrorists by Timothy McVeigh; Many Neo-Nazis are converting to Islam). I have called you an anti-Hindu, which you are. It is not a slur, merely a statement of fact. I don;t mean you any malice, only ask that you attend diversity seminars and seek psychiatrical counsel for your bigotry. Racist bigotry is a psychological disorder and can be cured.Netaji00:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been punished for personal attacks already. YOU need to be. I am working on that right now. There are ways even through a block.Netaji22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And when this lie is cleared up by the users you accuse of being my "sockpuppets" We will see about you. I am not a slave nigger. I am a nigger who bites back, mate.Netaji23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I'm proud of my race. If you WN people choose a historical pejoration to address my people we are perfectly within our rights to use it among ourselves. There is no connotation of discrimination as we are addressing it among equals as equals. This is a word that you people invented. It's not our fault that you feel uncomfortable when we use it among ourselves to remind us that you people used it to describe us (and still do, amongst yourselves).Netaji23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless YOUR ancestors were carried across the oceans IN CHAINS AGAINST THEIR WILL AND YOUR FAMILY SPENT THE NEXT SEVERAL GENERATIONS PICKING COTTON OR CUTTING CANE YOU DON'T GET TO USE THAT WORD.
SOME OF MY ANCESTORS WERE CARRIED ACROSS IN CHAINS. I am a shudra and collaterally related to the some Yadav Bihari clans. Yadavs were enslaved by the Dutch in the 19th century and carried across the Atlantic IN CHAINS to Guyana and Suriname to do slave work. Gujarati Banias were carried by the British IN CHAINS to Southern Africa for slave work also. They (the Yadavs of South America) allied with the blacks who had rebelled against their masters in the US and retreated there (they were called moors) and, to this day, former Hindu slaves reside in those two South American Countries. SO I DEFINITELY GET TO CALL MYSELF A NIGGER! British and Dutch slave masters referred to us as NIGGERS. During the Indian intellectual awakening we were SMART NIGGERS. Thus, I AM PERFECTLY WITHIN MY RIGHTS AS A BROWN MAN to use the term NIGGER to myself or my people as a reminder of how we were persecuted, enslaved and ethnically cleansed by the white man. So there.Netaji23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am black. My people are black. Our pantheon has black gods (Rama, Krishna, Shiva all black). We are proud of being black. We represent the black man. I am also brown in the sense of a shade of black.Netaji23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already have. I'm darker skinned than most African-Americans and so it's not a problem. I have also been to Jamaica and the West Indies and we used 'nigger' amongst ourselves while playing cricket.Netaji00:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, East Austin has more Hispanics than Blacks, and I look pretty much like a really dark Puerto-Rican. So no problems there either. Lol!Netaji00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Unblock request reason:
While the sockpuppetry charge is blatantly false, the others are not and some punishment is ok, though one week is too harsh. What is blatantly unfair is the following:
User Terry J-Ho has engaged in the same kind of "capitalization" in edit summaries that you have punished me for and has not been dealt with. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence/2006_revision&action=history here.Summary dated:
"19:59, 17 August 2006 TerryJ-Ho Talk ontribs This is the reference - DO NOTTTTTTT PUT IN THAT FISIUSA LINK - IT NOT A NPOV source".I can also provide arguments and evidence that user Geek1975 is a sock puppet of user Terry J-Ho. Again, he gets away with it. This is grossly unfair.While I have engaged in needling User CiteCop and am being punished, he has also engaged in personal attacks against ME and has not been punished. See his contrib history using your popup or any other admin tool at your disposal. This is also grossly unfair.
Netaji23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new request. I will keep making them until justice has been done. Like I told CiteCop. I will not be a house nigger.Netaji00:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People need to stop using this page to attack Subhash and vice versa. Why you guys all feel the need to constantly attack each other just baffles me. Wikipedia is not a message board. It's not a place where it's considered acceptable to attack others. At this point, further attacks are just going to jeopardize your ability to edit. That's all it's going to do. It's not constructive in the least. It doesn't lead to better articles or greater understanding between disparate groups. All it does is lead to more anger. So. Stop. Immediately. Or else I will start blocking people for their conduct on this page or the page will be locked until the user is eligible to edit again. --Woohookitty(meow)07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for intervening. I will naturally not instigate any attacks if the other parties involved agree not to do the same.Netaji07:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, I assert again that I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPETEER OF ANYBODY!!!!!!! Please carry out whatever RFCU you need to. I maintain that CiteCop knowingly made a false accusation.Netaji08:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haphar has been trying to incite trouble
Here [22] and here making an irrelevant edit to a talk page (trying to recruit fundamentalist elements into a cabal IMHO). Report this as harassment.Spanking from here wasn't enough. Watching contribs page.Netaji08:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No incitement, I had put the comments on the talk page several weeks ago ( 26th July), yesterday Neta removed it [23] i put them back. I think unilaterally removing comments on talk pages is not a done thing, if you dispute the comments, or if I have put up lies please discuss. Also you are free to watch my contibs page it is there for tha very purpose.- Also would like to point out that words like "spanking" are not civil and this is the second time you have used it. Please do not going forward Haphar08:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. This is another guy in my department who expressed an interest in editing on wikipedia some weeks ago. I have forwarded information to that effect to an admin.
2. I do not believe that anon users don't count as sock puppets.
So he expressed an interest in editing the same articles as you, and he decides to join two days after your block begins? Anyone would admit that is highly suspicious, or a very large coincidence. And it seems he was familiar (or claimed to be familiar) with Wikipedia policies (as well as their shortcuts) as soon as his second edit. IP's used to evade a username block or violations of 3rr count as sockpuppets. BhaiSaabtalk04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at his contribs and he hasn't edited all the articles as me. Too bad. I'll clear up this RFCU. You know perfectly well that this sockpuppetry accusation (like the last one) is bogus. After he block clears, I will ask for an investigation of you because these bogus sockpuppetry accusations count as stalking and can be construed as personal attacks. At best, this is worth a complex investigation.Netaji04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the IP hasn't edited the same articles as you - that would be plainly obvious, but all the articles edited by that IP (two of them) have been edited quite frequently by you before. The IP also has the habit of including words in parenthesis in the edit summaries, something that you do as well. BhaiSaabtalk04:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man arguments. I did an nslookup of the ip address in question:
nslookup 128.83.131.139
Server: 192.168.1.1
Address: 192.168.1.1#53
Non-authoritative answer:
139.131.83.128.in-addr.arpa name = twist.ph.utexas.edu.
dns2.cso.uiuc.edu internet address = 128.174.5.104
chisos.ots.utexas.edu internet address = 128.83.185.39
chinati.ots.utexas.edu internet address = 128.83.185.44
marianas.its.utexas.edu internet address = 69.20.4.146
The machine is called "twist". It is a public access server that any of the 500 students in my department could have used. I certainly didn't, since I haven't been to my department in days. Check the UT shuttle route calendar and you will see that the shuttles aren't running today or the last few days and, since parking in UT is too expensive and rare, I'm pretty much stuck at home. Senior students (who get a higher stipend and so are wealthier) are not so restricted.
As of this moment, I have ended an irc chat session with several wikipedia admins on #wikipedia-in. The user accused of being my "sockpuppet" was there logged in from the ip address while I was in my home computer. We have established that we are 2 different people and not sockpuppets.Netaji07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
This dude has been vandalizing articles on wikipedia. I "reverted" them, but you might want to watch this guy just the same.
