User talk:Kiftaan

Welcome!

Hello, Kiftaan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kingturtle (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Hello! I'm a bot created by another Wikipedia editor. I wanted to let you know that I removed a link that you recently added to the page Koche Sesame here. I did this because http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabulpublicdiplomacy/sets/72157628232390399/with/6435880313/ is probably inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Instead of linking to an external image, you can find images already available or use the upload wizard if you'd like to add new free content.

We appreciate your help in making Wikipedia better for everyone. If I made a mistake, feel free to undo my edit. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Help desk.

Thank you! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in International co-productions of Sesame Street, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Christine (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please understand what WP:VANDALism is. Accusations of vandalism (such as [1]) should not be levelled at good-faith edits that you disagree with.

Furthermore, you edit summary asserts not sourced addition which is obviously wrong, and continues but deliberate falsification which violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If your temper is running too high to edit politely, please step away from the keyboard William M. Connolley (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You replied on my takl page. Can I draw your attention to the edit notice there, which says: You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. Accordingly, I've moved your comment here:

Hi. I think you made a quick judgement on me without realizing what is going on. The source he used does not say "Sunnis 75-90%". [2] This my friend is very important because there are all the world's top experts on Islam saying that Sunnis are 80-90% and this one Wikipedia editor User:PassaMethod comes and lowers the number most likely for personal satisfaction. In this case it is considered vandalism and deliberate falsification. He ignored the talk page as I have made a clear point on why the number should avoid the 75% because it is clearly false.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please don't use "This my friend". Perhaps it works in your culture; in mine, it is offensive over-familiarity.

Now, the substance:

User:PassaMethod comes and lowers the number most likely for personal satisfaction - please don't speculate on others motives
In this case it is considered vandalism: no, it is not considered vandalism: please read the links I've provided.
and deliberate falsification - again, no.

Discussing the true percentage on the talk page: fine. Accusing good-faith editors of vandalism and deliberate falsification: no William M. Connolley (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. I'm not speculating. When someone is constantly lowering the percentage of Sunnis even after they know that all sources do not agree with the lower number it makes it quite clear what the motives of the editor are, especially when you see him editing articles pertaining to Islam. You gonna have to make the right decision here on who's side you are. I believe that Wikipedia should discourage people who force their minor view on everyone. Anyway, have a nice day and please try to understand where I'm coming from. I may be a new editor but that doesn't mean I should be treated lesser than those who have been here for a longer period.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Islam

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Kiftaan reported by User:PassaMethod (Result: Warned) which contains a warning for you. If you continue to revert on the percentage of Muslims who are Sunni before consensus is reached on the talk page you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that this is edit-warring? You should warn that person also, he is falsifying the Sunni percentage by lowering them to 75%, which is rejected by all the sources. There is not a single source on earth that says Sunnis are 75% except Wikipedia, which is the false estimate made by the edit-warrior User:PassaMethod whom you helped.--Kiftaan (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You state: "There is not a single source on earth that says Sunnis are 75% except Wikipedia". But that seems to be less that accurate -- see here and here and here, for example.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the same source (CIA /world factbook) which claims 10-20% are Shias and the remainder 80-90% are Sunnis, but it strangley uses the term "over 75%" for the Sunnis.--Kiftaan (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you three RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you posted here (1. the same CIA page that I saw 100s of times already, 2. a link to a book which uses the same CIA as a reference and an editor, Sue Hulett, who also uses the same CIA as a reference).--Kiftaan (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When RSs report what a reliable source says (or the same fact), that is further indicia of the reliability of the fact reported initially by the RS. And a google search will show you many more such references. Those books I reflected all show your statement -- "There is not a single source on earth that says Sunnis are 75% except Wikipedia" -- to be somewhat less than accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to provide a single source that says "Sunnis are 75%" of total Islam. You are not showing me an indication that you understand the issue here. If you say yes I acknolowledge that Shias are 10-20% of total Islam and Sunnis are 80-90%, then I will know that you are familiar with what is being argued here. It is useless to keep repeating the same thing over and over.--Kiftaan (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided three such sources. Directly above.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You provided these three:

CIA World Factbook: "Shia Islam represents 10-20% of Muslims worldwide... Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population".
Book where it mentions "The majority of the world's Islamic population, which is Sunni, account for over 75 percent of the Islamic population; the other 10 to 20 percent is Shia." Tha authors of this book cited the CIA World Factbook.
An online article by Sue Hulett posted at a local newspaper in Galesburg (USA) [3] "Let me review, while Shia Islam makes up only 10-20 percent of the world’s Muslim population... Sunnis make up over 75 percent of the world’s Muslim population. (If you like government figures, see the CIA World Factbook.)"

Notice that none of these claim Sunnis at 75%. They claim that Sunnis are over 75% to as high as 90%.--Kiftaan (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility (again)

This kind of stuff [4] isn't polite.

First off, since it is a question to a named individual, it belongs on their talk page.

Second, since you're essentially accusing them of WP:SOCKing, you need far more evidence than "you seem to have similar ideas" to make such a claim. And you should make the claim more politely.

I've removed it. Feel free to ask either of them on their talk pages if you must, but I'd advise you not. WP:SPI is that way, if you really think you have a case.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W. M. Connolley, I'm being polite. I asked the question to that guy because some editors use alternative accounts when editing controversial stuff. I find it very rare for someone to claim that there are more than 2 sects in Islam, which is something that is rejected by just about every expert dealing with Islam. I didn't accuse them of WP:SOCKing, you're jumping to conclusion here and you need to respect me as a fellow editor who is busy correcting important information and improving many articles. I don't appreciate your behaviour, it seems to me that you act like a personal guard of those who oppose me. I understand that you are an admin but you're suppose to act like a mediator, to help find compromising solution to problem we are having about the percentage of Sunnis and Shias.--Kiftaan (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mistakened you with User:EdJohnston.--Kiftaan (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance over PassaMethod's user page reveals that he is a deist who believes in reincarnation. As evidenced by my userpage, I'm a Christian who believes the Omega Point provides an explanation for miracles and a final resurrection. The acceptance that there are more than two sects of Islam is really the only similarity between me and PassaMethod. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this, I just became a little confused and assumed that you and the other guy were one person. I respect everyone's faith and I appreciate your involvement in trying to find a solution because the article needs to have the percentages corrected.--Kiftaan (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a suggestion, Kiftaan. I've been reading a number of your assertions, both on this page and at the RSN, and it strikes me that you may perhaps be given to stating as "FACT" matters that are simply ones that you --without having done any research -- believe to be fact. The nature of editors here is that, if you state something as fact that they believe to be untrue, they are very likely to research it. If it turns out that your assertions of fact are untrue, and this happens repeatedly, it may lead to a lessening of the persuasiveness of your comments. You might, therefore, find it more effect to first try to research your assertion before you make it, if you believe it is one that might be subject to challenge. Just a suggestion. As to this specific issue, there are for example a number of RSs that mention Ahmadiyya as a sect of Islam--such as the following: [5][6][7][8]--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is speculation to say "without having done any research" because I have provided references to what the leading experts say. Information about Islam is everywhere and very easy to understand. About the Ahmadiyya, this is a movement that began in the 19th century by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Some people view them as nonmuslims but in reality they are Sunnis who believe in extra stuff. Like all other Muslims, they believe in Allah and Muhammad, say the shahada, pray 5 times daily, do fasting, and etc. They believe in the 4 Caliphs and that makes them non-Shias. Most importantly, they consider selves as Muslims. You may call this a sect but it comes under the bigger Sunni sect. These google books you are posting to me need to be examined one by one because sometimes you find material copied from Wikipedia into them. You also need to study about who the author is and were does he/she gets the info from, which is to follow the notes. You seem to be more focused on me instead of the real issue and that the other editors, who are removing whatever info they don't like to see [9] and lowering the number of Sunnis by cherry-picking sources [10].--Kiftaan (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your unrecognized contributions to 2011 Afghanistan Ashura bombings. Happy editing! -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N

This is a notification here. Pass a Method talk 19:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Pass a Method seems to be asserting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued edit warring despite admin warning that you are continuing to edit war on the percentage of Muslims who are Sunni, without getting the requisite support on a talk page for your changes. You may respond at ANI if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is evident that this PassaMethod is making alot of disruptive edits so why don't you block him? Does he have a special license to do this? Did you see me change the percentage again? I removed the 2 sources (PRC and Berkley) used for 10-20% [11] because these 2 do not support that claim, they actually say that Shias are only 10-15%.[12] [13]--Kiftaan (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that some sources are better than others, and some may not even be relevant. But to see anyone removing any sources tends to set off alarm bells, when they pertaint to a dispute you are in the middle of. It is better if you can get consensus on the talk page before removing any sources. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I added a little big of everything (investigative report, cia, encyclopedia, academic, major news agencies, latest books, etc.) so that other editors can decide which are of better quality, current and accceptable.--Kiftaan (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited ANA Commando Brigade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other people's user pages

Do not vandalise and edit other people's user pages, including mine. You have gone way too overboard. This is going to be your first and last warning. Mar4d (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, do not vandalise userpages. You are testing my patience here. Mar4d (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not vandalism. You need to stop denying that you are not the banned sockmaster User:Strider11 and possibly many others. Stop using dozens of different names to edit pakistani pages.--Kiftaan (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been brainwashed and fed up with confusion in your attempts to portray every single Pakistani editor as a sockmaster. I can only shake my head in disbelief at your utter delusion. I'm going to answer each and every question you've put there. Meanwhile, stop your vandalising campaign and hear the account. Mar4d (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Ironboy and I have never interacted with him (and I don't remember interacting with you). I've been on Wikipedia for more than five years never having another account. This is your only warning, if you add that tag back again (esp. on my page) I will get you blocked for vandalizing my user page and campaigning against all Pakistani editors on the pretext of your hallucinations. Unlike Mar4d, I won't be kind enough to answer your useless allegations. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of overlaps between you and Ironboy11. [14] You actually began editing in October 2011 [15], just after Ironboy11 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked, before that your account was a sleeper. Now you took over his edits on the same pages (i.e. [16]).--Kiftaan (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again

I am not PassaMethod or anyone else but me, as you again accused me of being (without any evidence) here. Accusations of sockpuppetry is not how disagreements are handled here. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I had a feeling that you were, and I just reverted my edit.[17]--Kiftaan (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I'm filing a report at ANI. "Feelings" and disagreement are not evidence for such accusations, it was insane and childish to bring that back up.

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The user who cried sock. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CIA World Factbook

I've noticed that some of this account's edits appear to intentionally distort what sources say, even this one with the summary "according to the sources provided". This kind of distortion is NOT acceptable. I hope that any reviewing admin bears this in mind, in addition to the spurious sockpuppetry claims, should an unblock be requested. I'm having to spend a few hours reviewing old edits... bobrayner (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't read all the sources, The World Factbook states Religion: Sunni Muslim 80%, Shia Muslim 19%, other 1% [18], and how do you figure that I intentionally distort what sources say? Btw, I'm not Shia.--Kiftaan (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so the CIA is unreliable on their Sunni figures, but not for their Shia figures? Odd that you find it fine to quote them to pull the CIA factbook out to lower the bottom range for Shia figures, but went on a crusade against its use when the same was done for Sunni. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In one of that discussions I have explained that I respect the CIA as a source and has been using that site since at least 2002. I came across a conflicting figure (75% Sunnis / 10-20% Shias = 85-95% total) and decided to let others know about the finding so that it gets fixed, and it was decided that we keep all sources, and I was satisfied with that. Did you see me removing the CIA? My action was appropriate. In this case, however, the percents all add up perfectly to 100% so there is no problem.--Kiftaan (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My investigation

Last month, on 19 November 2011, an admin blocked Mar4d (talk · contribs) (also known as user:Drspaz), for "Abusing multiple accounts" [19] [20] [21] at Commons.
The location of the IP that Mar4d was using on that day (123.211.72.151) originates to "AUSTRALIA, Chatswood, New South Wales" [22], which matches with this IP's location where sockmaster Strider11 was modifying info on one of his sock's profile page. 1, 2, 3 Then, a short while later, he logs as user:Pacifist94 (confirmed as Strider11) and continues to modify the same profile page. [23] That should confirm that someone in Chatswood, New South Wales, AU was doing all the edits, using the same IP that Mar4d is using. Mar4d is a Pakistani living in Australia and if you look at the earliest history of Pakistani Australian [24], you'll see that user:Pahari Sahib (a Pakistani) making this edit in 2008 (before Mar4d was created). The similarity report between Mar4d and Pahari Sahib shows that they both edited over 891 of the same pages relating to Pakistan.[25]
The IPs listed at the Strider11 SPI also originate to the same above location (Chatswood, New South Wales) [26] [27] [28] [29], where Mar4d was socking from last month. The edits made by these IPs [30] [31] [32] [33] are what Mar4d often do (i.e. fixing cats, adding templates, and minor fixes to Pakistani-related pages).
Strider11 (a Pakistani) was banned on 22 October 2009 [34] and began evading that block by socking (hiding under his user:Pahari Sahib name or) per his own admission "Mar4d was an IP address editor and currently likes to edit articles on a wide range of topics." Using IP after any ban is considered WP:sock puppetry per Wiki policy. He revealed himself on 16 April 2010, less than 6 months after he was officially banned as sockmaster Strider11. He does NOT qualify for WP:CLEANSTART because: 1. He never stopped editing Wikipedia after he was banned in October 2009, and if you look at this, he was evading the block under his a.k.a. Pahari Sahib 2. His new Mar4d account was merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities (i.e. he created Drspaz without informing anyone [35] which is again considered sockpuppetry especially in his case, and he has been editing the same exact Pakistani pages that he was editing under his previous dozens of socks). 3. His edits are clearly of a Pakistani nationalistic, anti-Afghan [36] [37] and anti-Indian [38] propagandist, constantly involved in edit-wars, pov-pushing, falsifying information in articles [39], involving other Pakistani friends or associates into his disputes with other editors (violation of WP:MEAT), and so on and so on... even trying to lecture us about how ISPs are set up as if we are 4th graders.[40]
He may or may not be using other socks currently, that's why I recommend a CU run on Mar4d like how it was done on me and this statement with evidence may be copy-pasted there. I feel that Mar4d should be treated as another sock of Strider11 who successfully evaded a ban in October 2009 and if he's rewarded for fooling so many admins then I and many others should be rewarded the same way with new account name. See my unblock request now...

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).

Kiftaan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, Happy Christmas! My behaviour in talk pages may be disruptive or annoying to some but my edits to pages are just correcting minor stuff, usually just adding or adjusting images I want every article to have high quality and more meaningful images. I promise to stay away from editing Afghanistan pages or starting disputes over percents, figures and stuff like that, or start SPIs on others even if I know they are socking. My original block was some what unfair, and I was unfamilar with how to defend my self or what action to take to unblock myself. Instead of creating a new account, I should have started a vote process on one of the ANI pages for admins to decide on unblocking me. Most importantly, at that time I was quitting cigarettes and I was coping with this, which like fighting a monster within yourself. Please also see above "My investigation" and notice how another confirmed sockmaster is allowed to use multiple accounts AFTER he was caught red-handed last month [41] [42] [43] using multiple socks. I just feel that I am treated very unfairly.--Kiftaan (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not going to get your block lifted by accusing others - see WP:NOTTHEM. As for your repeated sock accusations against others, there is only one legitimate place to discuss that - take it to SPI or shut up about it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2011 (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.

I cannot edit SPI. How difficult is it for you to copy paste my above statement at SPI? If you do that I will end my accusations.--Kiftaan (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d wants to deny the allegation

Some nice stories that you've created here. To the admin who reads the above accusations, please also see the full passage of comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1/Archive#23 December 2011, the comments by various other alleged "sockpuppets" above and the following thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The user who cried sock. To Kiftaan, I've had enough of you wasting mine and other people's time here and am not going to reply to your BS anymore on Wikipedia. This place is a lot better without you, take my word. Mar4d (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was very busy with real life at the time when I was commenting in those places so I couldn't explain the situation precisely. Mar4d, telling others "This place is alot better without you" is innappropriate especially for a violator like you who is now established to be a long time sockmaster, including an edit-warrior, meat puppeteer, an anti-Afghan, anti-Indian, anti-USA, and anti-NATO pov-pusher while at the same time a pro-Pakistani nationalist. This is regardless what other editors say because some may come here to spoof/mock me or some may really lack understanding. If you are Muslim, consider God reading this note and watching the situation. I know you from other sites too so don't play games with me. You got caugh red-handed and still you're trying to deny being a sockmaster, or using many socks. At least I'm not dishonest, I always tell admins that I have used socks and why can't you do the same so this whole shit can come to an end? Also, does it occurr to you that some people (including members of law enforcement agencies) come to this site and else where online just to observe the behaviours of editors for whatever reason that may be. You don't need to be a member with an account in order to check who edited Wikipedia pages and etc. The thing that I learned from my experiance here in Wikipedia is that every single editor who was opposing me happens to be Shi'a Muslim and from a minority ethnic group. I find this really amazing.--Kiftaan (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out again that your buddy user:TopGun is also sockpuppeteer like you (he is at least a latest sock of banned Ironboy11 (talk · contribs) but admins refuse to do a CU on him. Notice how he tries to obfuscate the situation here, that's always an early detection when a guilty attempts to come out clean. You've been doing the same everywhere. I can make a list of his suspected socks here but it's useless because admins have decided not to investigate.--Kiftaan (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins might do one thing though; shut down your talk page for continuing to pull users out of the hat and blaming them of being socks. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were not a sockmaster or sockpuppeteer, you wouldn't have been contesting the issue so much. It is not a crime or a violation of Wikipedia guidelines for me to suspect someone as a sockpuppet. You would've probably filed an SPI requesting to run a CU on yourself if you were so confident but you're in a state of fear that an admin might come here and decide to file an SPI on you. But even if that happens you don't care much because later you will create another sock, and the edits you did from October 2011 to now is not much for you to worry.--Kiftaan (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up, see the reason why you are blocked, then scroll further up and sign out. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's none of your business why I was blocked. Any admin can decide to unblock me at any time. This report shows that you and indef-blocked Ironboy11 have edited 96 of the same pages relating to Pakistan... Ironboy11 was kicked-out in October of this year and you became a regular editor in that same month on the same Pakistani pages. One would ask where did Ironboy11 go because he was hooked on editing Pakistani pages in Wikipedia?--Kiftaan (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a meaningless discussion which is why the admin quickly closed it. I was called a liar, and making baseless sockpuppetry accusations but now I have explained here that I am not a liar no matter what others say or think, and my suspecions were not wrong. I'm 100% sure that you are sock of Ironboy11 who in turn is sock of Siddiqui (talk · contribs) from North America. These 5 points will prove it and the case should be solved.

Everywhere Ironboy11 (talk · contribs) left off you came and took over with editing those pages. [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]........
Nearly all these pages were originally edited or created by the banned Pakistani sockpuppeteer/copyright-infringer user:Siddiqui. [50] See this for quick example. The similarity report between you and Siddique shows that 106 Pakistani pages were edited by you two, which to my understanding is that you are that banned Siddique (Farhan Ahmad Siddiqui from Nevada (United States) [51] [52]) who has used socks for "Disruptive editing: Extensive copyright infringement across multiple accounts" [53]. Ironboy11 (also a Pakistani and also from Nevada (United States) [54]) also got indef-blocked for copyright violations. [55]
Siddique once mentioned that he was partially Pashtun of Rohilla stock and Ironboy11's edits indicate that he has some Pashtun roots, and your user page mentions that you can speak or understand Pashto [56], which in Pakistan usually applies when someone has Pashtun roots.
Your user page also states that you've "been on Wikipedia for 5 years and 29 days", which just about matches Siddique's Wiki experiance. [57] As soon as you began using this sleeper account (TopGun) in October, you quickly began reporting user:JCAla (Afghan) and others (Indians) to admins, and started showing everyone various Wiki policy shortcuts and etc. All of these actions, including editing just Pakistani pages, explain that you're an experianced Wikipedian and hooked on Pakistani pages. One would ask where did Siddique/Ironboy11 go because they were also just editing Pakistani pages?
You added the category "Wikipedians in Pakistan" to your user page in November of this year [58] possibly for misleading, the same way your buddy user:Mar4d did. He's in Australia but on his user page it states that he's in Pakistan.

Are you satisfied with my investigation? Do you now see the connection between Siddique + Ironboy11 + TopGun or should I provide more evidence? Do you still think I'm making baseless accusations and pulling names out of a hat?--Kiftaan (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only laugh on your 'investigation'. All of your facts are wrong and I'll facilitate you in no way to make you think otherwise since I'm enjoying your current Pakistanophobia. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just provided more evidence, you have edited Pakistanophobia under Ironboy11 and under your current sock. [59] You need discipline, I recommend that you and Mar4d be blocked until you reform. Btw, a number of times I tried to neutralize JCAla's edits because they contained excessive information about blaming Pakistan for all the mess in Afghanistan but I was over powered. In fact, because of me defending Pakistan by adding some positive points about it I was labelled a Taliban sympathizer by several edit-warriors and then got banned as a result. Now you're trying to say I'm anti-Pakistani which is wrong.--Kiftaan (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Kabul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miniature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)