User talk:Falcon2020

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Hello Falcon2020! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ITAQALLAH 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Contents

[edit] Ignorance

Do you understand how democracies work? the accusations of complicity in 2002 Gujarat violence are made against NDA govt, not UPA govt by AI or anyone. Please do not promulgate bias based on ignorance. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The source states that the INDIAN government "acquiesced" to the massacre. READ the source I cited. It is not for you to make a judgment whether that assessment is accurate. You are being dishonest anyway, you could delete that one sentence, but instead you deleted all that information I added. Shall I assume you supported the killings and rapes?Falcon2020 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The india govt OF THE TIME, which is NDA, NOT UPA, which is a different govt. That is like accusing Democrats of things that Republicans did in USA. GET IT??? Please don't make foolish edits. Your edits show a clear bias against Indians and are intensely racist.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Then edit the article to say "of the time". Don't delete large amounts of text. Your other accusations are ridiculous, and suggest you lack intelligence to engage in civil discourse. Falcon2020 04:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you did not edit that in shows that you have not done enough research or are not knowledgable enough on this topic as most Indians. You are a wikipedian and have right to edit, but are not allowed to disrupt wikipedia to make a point, which is what you did. See WP:POINT. Your final edit summary demonstrated a clear intention to edit-war instead of discuss, and your attempts to canvass for gangs of revert-warriors is also a clear intent to game the 3RR rule to get me blocked out of retribution. This is unprofessional and intellectually dishonest on your part and then you have the audacity to claim disgust? It is I who should be disgusted sir. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The article notes at the very beginning that the event in question is in 2002. Obviously criticism would be levied against the government at the time. As for disgust, I am not the one justifying a massacre and mass-rape. Falcon2020 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are implying that I am, then you have made a personal attack:

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not implying anything. I'm STATING it. Your editing/reverting amounts to censorship of all neutral accounts of the event. The article title is even unacceptable - in the real world, people refer to the event as the "Gujarat Massacre". The article now starts with an apologetic 'justification' of the mass murder and RAPES by calling it "retaliatory". You cannot 'retaliate' against someone who did nothing to you. Falcon2020 04:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No, they were retaliatory. See Godhra Train Burning that preceded the riots. The 2002 Gujarat violence article is entirely neutral to a non- Hinduhater. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
So EVERY one of the 2000 Muslims killed and women raped are just targets for that train incident? It is justify to kill someone of a similar religion and that violence gets called retaliation? You cannot retaliate against someone who is innocent, and someone who didn't commit the crime but resembles the perpetrator in religion only, is INNOCENT. You are a bigot if you buy that shit. Falcon2020 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That's it, you have made one too many personal attacks. Plus, HRW is not neutral or reputable. See Criticism of Human Rights Watch.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
HAHAHA...HRW criticized for 'bias' by South American dictators and Hindutva fascists...Obviously human rights violators will scream 'bias' when they can do nothing else. The Indian government incited and then promoted a massacre, and when HRW mentions it, the common escape is to accuse them of bias. According to Amnesty, foreign neutral observers were not allowed to study the crime scene. The very people who committed the massacre were allowed to fabricate their own recollection of what happened. That is what you're promoting by reverting the article to this status where only Government-fed garbage is presumed truth. What you are doing is inhuman, and should be criminal. The pro-hindutva sources in the article are more reliable? That's laughable. Falcon2020 06:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you prove that they are "Hindutva fascists"? Accusations of "fascism" are a sure sign of racism on your part, so I will have nothing more to do with you. I will file further complaints against you if you perist with your vandalism and will revert all edits that are unencyclopedia and do not conform to wikipedia guidelines.Rumpelstiltskin223 12:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring and civility

Please avoid edit warring - your behaviour on 2002 Gujarat violence is not good - and be more careful about civility; you are on the boundary of being blocked for lack of it William M. Connolley 13:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You put a warning on my talk page in regards to my behavior on 2002 Gujarat violence. Have you considered looking at the page, particularly all the WP policies being violated by those I'm in conflict with? Compare the article with neutral media reports on what actually happened. The event involves a massacre of over 2000 people, the rape of hundreds of women, the mutilation of girls (Amnesty notes the practice by Hindutva activists of cutting open their wombs). Neutral reports allege the Indian government acquiesced to the atrocity, and that the local police actively participated in it. The article is being edited by those editors to make it seem that the only 'atrocity' that took place was the hard time the Indian government got from reputed foreign newspapers and human rights organizations. Would you have anything to say about any of that? As I said elsewhere, the censorship going on in that page should be deemed criminal. Falcon2020 16:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 48 Block

You have been blocked 48h for abuse of reporting system and 3RR vio.--CSTAR 20:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Abuse? I filed a 3RR on an editor who was blanking large amounts of text which were supported with verifiable sources. What could be more appropriate than to file that report? I also filed an RfC to bring more editors to express their views on the article in question. This block is unwarranted. Falcon2020 20:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|Report in question is a 3RR report, filed correctly. Editor in question is edit warring, blanking large amounts of text supported using reputable sources. The editor in question is causing the article to fail to meet the standards of [[WP:NPOV]]. I did nothing inappropriate, and have filed an RfC to bring more editors to view and comment on this poorly constructed article}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

first offense, see below

Request handled by: CSTAR 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK based on the fact this was your offense and you are a new user, I removed the block I imposed earlier.

Henceforth, before filing a 3RR complaint form, please make sure all stated edits are indeed reverts, plus give time of each revert.--CSTAR 00:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of Admin authority! (for the eyes of admins I will soon contact)

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington has blocked me after an OBVIOUSLY FALSE CheckUser operation. He blocked me indefinitely, accusing me of being User:BhaiSaab. I ask that any other admin perform the same check- I am not that user. After that, I DEMAND the administrative privliges of this person be revoked. I filed an ANI against a user who had violated 3RR twice today, engaged in harassment, vandalism (deleting talk page entries), and all my actions have been in keeping with WP policy..The issue in question revolves around a massacre in India where the government was allegedly complicit, and the person I was in conflict with made repeated (and horribly unfound)accusations of anti-hindu & anti-indian 'bigotry'. This user, a professed "Indian Wikipedian" went on to address my ANI entry,ignored the other party's past disruptions and his current ones, ignored the vandalism altogether, ignored his attacks on me AFTER the ANI filing, then went on to advise the rival editor on how to approach me. He suggested a CheckUser on my account, which I would welcome, and then after, banned me as a sockpuppet of User:Bhaisaab. As I know I am not that user and that user has never used my computer or IP, I can attest to the fact that the allegation is false, and consequently that this admin manufactured false evidence to ban a user who was using otherwise legitimate means to secure the integrity of Wikipedia content.Falcon2020 07:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington]] has blocked me after an OBVIOUSLY FALSE CheckUser operation. He blocked me indefinitely, accusing me of being User:BhaiSaab. I ask that any other admin perform the same check- I am not that user. After that, I DEMAND the administrative privliges of this person be revoked. I filed an ANI against a user who had violated 3RR twice today, engaged in harassment, vandalism (deleting talk page entries), and all my actions have been in keeping with WP policy..The issue in question revolves around a article on a massacre in India, in 2002, where the government was allegedly complicit, and the person I was in conflict with made repeated (and horribly unfound)accusations of anti-hindu & anti-indian 'bigotry' against me. I filed an appropriate ANI entry. This Admin, a professed "Indian Wikipedian" went on to address my ANI entry,ignored the other party's past disruptions and his current ones, ignored the vandalism altogether, ignored his attacks on me AFTER the ANI filing, then went on to advise the rival editor on how to approach me. He suggested a CheckUser on my account, which I would have welcomed, and then after, banned me as a sockpuppet of User:Bhaisaab. I have since looked into the user's edit history to compare similarities, and I have found the similarities to be very few. I have found that User:BhaiSaab never edited the article in question, nor has he engaged in the line of rhetoric that I have. As I know for a fact that I am not that user and that user has never used my computer or IP, I can attest to the fact that the allegation of sockpuppetry is false, and consequently that this admin manufactured false evidence to ban a user who was using otherwise legitimate means to secure the integrity of Wikipedia content.Falcon2020 07:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC"

Decline reason: "I'm a CheckUser and I concur in the findings. -- Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
Note to reviewing admin: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BhaiSaab. Luna Santin 10:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "I have been blocked as a sockpuppet of USer:BhaiSaab, whom I am not. I ask that an admin with no personal investment in the article or conflict in question (all involved here so far are professed indians and members of Wikiproject India, responding to a conflict in an India-related article) recheck and compare IPs using the full number. My writing style differs from the user whose sockpuppet I supposedly am, as do my opinions. BhaiSaab never edited this same article either. Drawing the conclusion that I am him based on a check that showed I use the same ISP (Verizon DSL, the most popular dsl service in the US)and from the same generic location (northeastern USA) is stupidity, promoted by the urge to silence a person critical of an incident that occurred in India 4 years ago. Falcon2020 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "I am the unconnected and independent administrator you asked for. I am confident that no abuse of process has taken place and therefore decline your request to be unblocked. -- ⇨REDVEЯS 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.


CheckUser cannot

The checkuser looks fine to me, so it isn't OBVIOUSLY FALSE. Since Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington doesn't have checkuser rights, he had to trust the few users who do have such rights. Eli Falk 12:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:: "Same geographic location and ISP"? So anyone living in northeastern USA using Verizon can be 'confirmed' a sockpuppet of one another? I'd ask that an admin who isn't personally invested in this conflict (the entire chain of involved admins here consists of Indians, responding to a conflict on an Indian editor throwing around accusations of anti-hindu/anti-indian bias, in an India-related article)check the ENTIRE IP address of mine and compare it with BhaiSaab's. I've never seen or met "BhaiSaab". From his edits, he's apparently either an Indian Muslim or a Pakistani, I am neither. Falcon2020 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If my IP is blocked from editing, and BhaiSaab's IP is blocked from editing, both by the Wikipedia system, there must be a person who can verify that these two IDs use two different IPs altogether. Someone needs to do that check. It is ridiculous that two people in the same general region using the same IP can be blocked using this misuse of an IP check. Falcon2020 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I suspect the user User:Rumpelstiltskin223 is actually a sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar. Rumpelstiltskin edits practically the same articles and became active immediately after Hkelkar was banned. His first post was on the 15th of Nov, 2006, when he immediately began edit warring on the articles frequented of Hkelkar. The very next day he started using popups to edit war.[1]Falcon2020 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/l/User_talk%7EFalcon2020_49f1.html"