Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/08

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Unregistered users

24.60.163.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

has made at least some acts of vandalism, including this one [1] after being warned a month earlier [2] by Xiong Chiamiov. I am unable to determine if this IP is contributing valuable edits in addition to vandalism given the level of subtlety in some possible cases (changing 'moderate' to 'strong', for example, in an acticle where only someone familiar with the specific topic can make the judgement). // Strangelv 06:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

205.188.116.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

67.151.178.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Has been consistently replacing public domain images in the Laurence Olivier and Bette Davis articles with claimed fair use images, both of which are listed for deletion because they do not contain licensing info - in any case, the public domain images should be kept. Looking at the user's edit history, user has been editing images in various celebrity articles, all of which have had unlicenced images uploaded by User:Corvidae682, whose talk page is full of copyright warnings. Perhaps IP and registered user are one and the same, but needs to be stopped. Images have been reverted 5 times in the last couple of days. Rossrs 13:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't see any warning on the IP's talk page, and therefore put one there. To me, warning the user directly on their talk page seems a rather obvious first measure. -- Hoary 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what I should have done. Thank you. I didn't realize that IP's had talk pages, or I would have. I thought only registered users...but now I see this user has had numerous warnings about all kinds of things. ok we'll see what happens now. Rossrs 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

68.45.138.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Massive sneaky vandalism for over a month. I warned this IP with a test4im on July 23, but he has continued to insert subtle misinformation since then. Since every edit from this IP appears to involve some subtle falsification or similarly unconstructive changes, it appears to be the same person on a static IP. I didn't warn the IP again, to avoid making the initial test4im seem meaningless. John254 19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

220.44.224.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Adding unconstructive edits, such as information about there personal life related to the page (in this case, Halo 2) and then vandalizing my page with personal attacks. I have warned the user for the edit on Halo 2 and then warned them again for attacking another user (me). Sasuke-kun27 05:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

71.124.121.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This is the first edit by an IP number user, who deleted a list item on 2006-08-28 referring to Wikipedia as a "cult" at List of groups referred to as cults. The deletion is suspicious since another first edit but logged in user had seemingly complained about this list item on 2006-08-24 on the talk page at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults#Wikipedia, Mary Kay, as cults. I've done my part — I investigated the list entry and documented it on the talk page as a legitimate reference. This now has Wikipedia self-referential aspects that others should deal with. Will an admin with IP-revealing tools please revert the deletion if you agree that it was inappropriate, investigate whether there is any technical relationship between the two users, and warn the user if appropriate? Milo 22:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • A regular editor has independently restored the "Wikipedia cult" list item. Please continue with investigation and user warning if appropriate. Milo 13:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It could have been a good faith edit, and as this IP has made no more edits (and the issue at the article seems to have been resolved), I don't think any further action needs to be taken. Petros471 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Registered users

R.N. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User uploaded two images, 'Image:Bum_licking_toilet.gif' and 'Image:4adecef9ae0f72643e62f4362140f8ea79dbaf15e0999de8f8bf2e3b069feedf4fcbce29bc47eccdcd365748f957649a.gif' (captioned this is homers butt). Not sure how to get rid of this nonesense // JanesDaddy 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Peterwats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Virtually all edits by this user appear to be spoofs or OR. Has been warned for lack of civility, but persists. Soman 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Most recent edits appear to be good faith (though inevitably biased). There also doesn't seem to be any personal attacks in the last few days. Therefore article edits should probably be treated as any other (i.e. revert/nominated for deletion if they are not suitable). Petros471 13:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maywither (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps putting nude photo into the Equestrianism article. This is about the fourth or fifth time it has happened. When putting a warning on the user page, noticed quite a number of warnings from other individuals about vandlaism to other pages. Aside from the obvious, the image is also inappropriate for the content of the article. Montanabw 23:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Detective 26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bull-Doser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)

Order of Saint Stanislaus

  • Order of Saint Stanislaus has been vandalized again and again. The situation is complex; it is an historic order but it has been reinstituted no less than four times. Sometimes by fantasists, or by people claiming to be princes selling orders to gullible Americans . Some of the knights of these competing orders are not gentlemen. They go on and on defamizing each other. They add no other articles or info to Wikipedia, just their self-promotion. In despair I offered them a chance to give their accounts (often obvious nonsense and half-truths) on four different pages for the four different branches of the order. No succes so far. Then someone ( as allways anonymus) deleted a page alltogether! He/she should be banned!
  • 84.57.198.115 ,
  • 84.57.168.238 ,
  • 69.165.176.101 ,
  • 84.57.201.81
  • and 84.57.154.254
have been obstructive. There is no communication, the give no reason for editing, they are slandering each other. I propose a temporary ban. It would be better to limit the right to edit or add articles to registered adresses. There is no way to communicate with these shady figures!

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel 13:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Archived. I talked to reporter, and although it's a content dispute, offered what assistance I could. --ZsinjTalk 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Danianjan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • 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 [8] 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)

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[9] My response at 1300 hrs 26th July-[10].

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)

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)
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)
User:Subhash Bose is not the world's authority on deciding who is anti anything. ADL [11]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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
More personal attacks from Wikindian here. in 'Still Homesick' Danianjan was the instigator of the personal attack.Netaji 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)
The manner in which you phrase is certainly offensive, Neta. --Wikindian 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
At best, this is POV-pushing. At worst, an ad-hominem attack.Netaji 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Personal attack from User Haphar

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

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)


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 [12] 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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Warned Daninajan for WP:OWN. Archiving. --ZsinjTalk 23:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

69.246.15.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He is now vandalizing my user page and adding false information to the Grind House article.--CyberGhostface 13:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm putting this back at the top because a quick look at his contributions show he he is frequently vandalizing articles adding false information and no one is doing anything about it. Now he's vandalizing Hostel 2, Johnny Depp and Grind House (film).--CyberGhostface 02:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. 31 hours. --ZsinjTalk 14:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

70.101.201.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Bobybuilder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NO MORE ILLEGALS KILL ALL 20 MILLION MUDS!!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few minutes ago, the recnt changes page was flooded with accont creations. I believe these accounts were all made by the same person (or bot).

There were many, many, more, but these are all I can remember. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the bad usernames were blocked soon after creation by newuser patrollers. The other usernames listed appear to be completely different users, judging from their edits, so no action is necessary. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FunkyFly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User FunkyFly reverted a edit by 66.167.231.136 on the Pontiac Trans Am article on 05:29, 20 August 2006. It happens to be that 66.167.231.136 edit was actually correct becuase the horsepower figuers on the page were very incorrect and also the proper term is liftback not fastback. By editing the article FunkyFly actually brought back the errors that were on the page previously. There was absolutely no reason for this revert and it was done because of the recent edit war on the Macedonia article. FunkyFly is nowhere to be seen on the Pontiac Trans Am article and only appeared this one time after 66.167.231.136's edit war with FunkyFly on the Macedonia article. 68.164.70.29 24 August 2006

Subhash_bose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Subhash_bose who goes by the username Netaji, has repeatedly called me a terrorist-lover on the Talk:Shiv Sena and Talk:Hindutva pages. Recently, he used the word "excretion" to describe my content. I think this is blatantly uncivil behaviour, and I request Netaji to be blocked for however long permissible. --Wikindian 17:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Response - Wikindian violated WP:OWN and vandalized my user talk page with false 3RR warnings when I tried to edit the page. Wikindians words need to be taken with a grain of salt. If its so severe why not provide diffs?Bakaman Bakatalk 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • For being uncivil please check [13] and [14]. 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 [15] and [16] Haphar 18:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • 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[17] My response at 1300 hrs 26th July-[18].

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)

        • 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
          • Ah yes Haphar also has a checkered history. He was quite incivil when I responded to his dastardly accusations of myself being a sock. His words too must be taken with a grain of salt.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see the dispute resolution process for user disputes. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/08&oldid=1137450464"