Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Siddiqui

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Reorganization in the middle of discussion

Why has this page reorganized ? All parties should be consulted before changing the format or reorganizing the discussion. All my answers and explanations have been moved. You cannot change this in the middle of a discussion. New allegations have appeared. Siddiqui 23:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why won't you answer these questions asked at least 13 times?;

Why did you blank the referenced quote from JI’s official site shown here, blank the totally uncontroversial GlobalSecurity.org link shown here and vandalise the referenced direct quote shown here? Veej 23:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

(Siddiqui | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User:Siddiqui is bent upon impreganting Wikipedia with a certain Islamist fundamentalist POV and history denial.

[edit] Description

User Siddiqui has been vadalising Indian history related articles since last December. He has unilaterally deleted all portions in many articles which show certain sections of Indian community is "bad light" inspite of verifiable sources given by other editors. User also frequently descends into nationalistic chauvinism and has also started Pseudo-Historical articles like Sakastan. When confronted on his talk page, he simply deletes the conversation.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(NOTE: This is by no means an exhaustive overview of all disputed behaviour indulged in by the User)

[1] Here User:Siddiqui deleted all mentions to historical references of Mahmud of Ghazni's same-sex relationship.

On Jammat-e-Islami User:Siddiqui deletes all refernces to JeI's alleged connections to terrorist outfits inspite of references provided.

In Hinduism in Pakistan article, Siddqui downplays Hindu role in Pakistan's history and also edits the population figures to look less than they actually were in 1947. [2]

At Qadianism article, User Siddiqui pushes fundamentalist Islamist POV. (Fundamentalist muslims believe that Qadanis are not muslims, but they (quadanis) call themselves Muslims). [3]. He also calls Ahamadis (another term for Quadanis) "kuttays" which in Hindi means dogs. [4].

Check [5] Revision as of 17:21, 1 February 2006 194.83.242.250 (Talk) This change was made by 194.83.242.250. I never wrote those words though I have reverted that version without read each and every word. Can you please check your allegations before making them here.

So you’re still with us Siddiqui? Well perhaps you could answer these questions that I’ve asked you at least 10 times;

[6] Granted the fact that this article Third battle of Panipat has distinct Maratha POV and the extenet of forced conversions and slavery maybe be exagerated but such things did indeed happen according to neutral sources. User:Siddiqui here again edits out all refernces to forced slavery of Maratha women by writing "they married handsome Afghans".

check [[7]] someone made those changes Revision as of 21:09, 6 January 2006 71.109.107.17 I just reverted to his changes. I did not read each and every line added by that person. I do accept the charge of reversion to his changes. I also found it NPOV when somebody accused me of writing this line.

You’re very selective in the questions you want to answer. For the 11th time;

At Ala ud din Khilji article Siddiqui again edits out all refernces to forced conversions. The extent may be exaggerated, but there is no denying it ever happened.

At Mughal Empire he deletes all refernces to forcible conversions inspite of historically authentic sources provided [8]

User:Siddiqui has also started pseudo-historical article Sakastan. The historical evidence existence of such a place is flimsy and no scholar of repute has accepted its existence.

User:Siddiqui has then started Kashmiri Freedom Movement which is a complete hogwash and contains obvious mistruths (like he forgets the mention that Pakistani tribesman invaded Kashmir first and there has been no evidence of all Kashmiris wanting to join Pakistan then). Pakistan's POV has been articulated in encyclopedically acceptable language in article Terrorism in Kashmir.

From Pakistan's perspective it is Freedom Movement and from India's perspective it is terrorism

From your perspective;

At Aurangzeb, he deltes refernces to temple destructions inspite of the fact that the source provided is Islamic! [9].

User:Siddiqui starts an edit war at Jamaat-e-Islami eventually leading to admin locking that page due to "Revert war between User:Siddiqui and User:Yahya01".

in frustration, user:veej makes misguided attempt at creating the category "Wikipedians_censored_by_Islamist_editors" which was deleted here. Within 2 hours, User:Siddiqui taunts him by creating "Category:Wikipedians censored by Zionist editors" and "Category:Wikipedians censored by Hindutva editors" in a childish tit-for-tat response.

Guilty as charged. But not in a childish tit-for-tat response. It was user:veej who started his tantrum

This is yet more evidence of taunting.Veej 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui anonymously vandalizes another page user:veej works on. It is explained look here. You can compare this & this. He previously admitted on a talk page that he is 69.194.136.40.

See this. User:Siddiqui calls a prominent Hindu organisation "fascist"! This clearly shows the anti-India and the anti-Hindu propaganda he is promoting in Wikipedia. --Spartian 18:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Check Talk page of Fiji Muslim League [[10]]

Read Indo-Fijian section "Religious and social divisions : 1920 - 1945". Fourth paragraph:

The Fiji Muslim League was founded in 1926. It defended the Muslim community against Arya Samaj attacks, and appealed to the British colonial authorities for help.

I've just had a quick look at the talk page and the only reference you give is to a Wikipedia article. That Wikipedia article doesn't give a reference either. You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a reference! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I quoted from that Wikipedia article. I have no other sources. As I told the other user who raised that issue at that time to get request source from the author of that article. Well, why can't we use Wikipedia reference for another article ? Is this a Wikipedia rule ? Why was that reference not questioned when I quoted that article few months ago. I got in trouble while nobody bothered to question the author of that article.

Surely you can understand by its very nature why you should not use an unreferenced claim in an existing article as a reference for another article? (It is identical to not including a reference at all!) I'm not sure about the incident you are talking of, but in general you should use third-party reliable (established) sources. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In several articles, the user replaced the term Indian subcontinent with South Asia without giving any reasons.

The reason is that this name is unacceptable to Pakistan and other states in South Asia. South Asia is the acceptable term. There is no other geographical entity that has name of major political entity as name of the continent. We don't call South America the Brazilian subcontinent or Europe as German subcontinent. Asia should be called Chinese Continent and earth as Chinese Planet with this logic. All the world organizations call this area as South Asia. Indian Subcontinent was only used during the British era. Even the ancient Babylonian called this Meluhha and not Indian Subcontinent. The name Sindu (Sindh river) changed to Indu by Persians and to India by Greeks. Arabs called Indus river basin (modern Pakistan)Sind and rest of South Asia as Hind. Nobody even used the term Indian Subcontinent before the British. Now is used by Indians and few other organizations. Can you please name all the world organizations (UN, World Bank, ADB, ....) that call this area as Indian Subcontinent ?

This defense is implausible, and inconsistent with Siddiqui's editing history.

In Aurangzeb article, Siddiqui changed all references to India to South Asia, again without comment or explanation. India, in that context, referred to the political entity, not to a geographic area -- like changing Pakistan to Northwest South Asia. There was no good reason to make this change.

One might draw the conclusion that Siddiqui removes the word India wherever he pleases, for whatever reason he wants.--Nemonoman 19:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I only change where the land area included India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Aurangzeb territory included some area of these countries. While some areas of these countries were never part of his empire. Aurangzeb never called his kingdom India or Indian Subcontinent or South Asia to him it was Mughal.

From my perspective, the issues are:

What is the time line of Indian Subcontinent ?

What are the boundries of Indian Subcontinent ?

Indian Subcontinent is simply a name for a geographical entity. User:Siddiqui is needlessly politicizing a simple issue. Another wikipdian has already pointed out to him that the name is derived from the river Indus which flows through Pakistan. Just as the British Isles which include the Republic of Ireland are a geographical entity, so is the Indian Subcontinent. These aren't political borders, but geographic facts. Aurangzeb, British era, ancient Babylonians and all the other drivel is irrelevant. This is a standard term all over the world & if he doesn't like it, he needs to change the world before he vandalizes wikipedia. Veej 21:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a simple issue in some respects.

It is not a drivel or irrelevant

May be you should also ask US State Department, United Nations, ADB, WHO, SAARC to remove vandalism by removing South Asia instead using Indian Subcontinent.

The US State Department, United Nations, SAARC etc are political organisations. They to have keep politicians happy. Something as petty as a name they’d willingly change if it avoided a couple of complaints so that they could get on with the bigger issues.

To ordinary english speakers, “South Asia” is a ridiculous term. Most people didn’t even know what it meant until recently. Have you seen a map of Asia? The Indian Subcontinent land mass is not at it’s most southern tip. Indonesia is, which is thousands of miles away. Do you you object to Indonesia also because ‘Ind’ is in the name? No matter how much you try to politicise this, it still remains a simple issue. “Indian Subcontinent” has long been the accepted international English language name for this geographical entity.

What do Academic Geographers call the region?

Cambridge call it “Indian Subcontinent”

Oxford call it “Indian Subcontinent”

UCL call it “Indian Subcontinent”

Harvard call it “Indian Subcontinent”

Yale call it “Indian Subcontinent” Veej 01:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Veej writes: To ordinary english speakers, “South Asia” is a ridiculous term.

Taking an example of Europe, with your logic Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Central Europe would also be ridiculous term. What would you call Northern Europe ?

Have I understood this situation correctly?

You’re happy to discuss this issue but you refuse to justify your; blanking of the referenced quote from JI’s official site shown here, blanking of the totally uncontroversial GlobalSecurity.org link shown here and your vandalism of the referenced direct quote shown here? I see your point about futility, Siddiqui. Veej 14:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is especially telling that Siddiqui changed the word INDIA (NOT Indian Subcontinent) to Southeast Asia in the Aurangzeb article, though his comments would suggest otherwise. He thus tries to suggest his interest is semantic rather than politcally motivated.

During some parts of Aurangzeb's reign, it's true, some (relatively minor) portions of the Mughal Empire extended beyond the area currently called India. South Asia, however, covers a lot of territory, the majority of it never held by any Mughal (the Mughal empire prinicipally was in current India, NOT in Afghanistan, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the bulk of Pakistan and Bengladesh).

If India seemed incorrect to Siddiqui in the Aurangzeb article, why not make mention of "parts of Pakistan and Bengladesh"? Since the borders of South Asia countries are in constant dispute, is it Siddiqui's suggestion that we change ANY reference to India, Pakistan, etc., to South Asia?

A more likely explanation for the change is that Siddiqui prefered that Aurangzeb (who something of an iconic hero in Pakistan) NOT be associated with India. I leave it to others to draw their own conclusions; but I have drawn mine. Siddiqui's pattern of edits makes the picture obvious. --Nemonoman 00:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui's pathological hatred of India and term India is evident from his family website. [11]

and finally to Bareilly near the Himalayas mountains close to Nepal border in South Asia. According to our family history, our ancestors arrived in South Asia during the reign of Sultan (King) Mohammad Ghauri, and later settled in Bareilly during the reign of Mughal Emperor Mohammad Aurangzeb Alamgir.

Oh f*** Bareilly in South Asia near the Nepal border, for all he is concerned it may be in Timbaktu. For once in your life be a man dude, its fine with me if you feel need to concoct an Arab heritage for your self but dont push your personal POV's here.

अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey

Firstly, I did design and implement my family website but there are atleast five people that have contributed to that website. There are many pages, sections, paragraphs and sentences that I did not write. In any case, I do accept full and complete responsibility for the content of my family website. This RFC seems to have expanded from its initial mandate from reviewing my changes in Indian related articles in Wikipedia to my family website's content.

Secondly, your use of profanity Oh f*** Bareilly in South Asia is also not accepted in Wikipedia.

The User Spartian writes His anti-Hindu and anti-India viewpoint is evident. Everybody has bias and POV. I am not editing Hinduism related pages in Wikipedia and adding links to anti-Hindu websites and news sites. What about Veej who is adding links in many Muslim pages in Wikipedia to anti-Muslim website and news. Anybody can check his contribution list [[12]]. What would you call him ?

Call me whatever want. We're going round in circles here. I have to state this yet again? If you have any genuine accusations regarding my behaviour on wikipedia, please feel free to file an RfC about me. This RfC however, is about YOUR behaviour and your arrogance in refusing to answer direct questions about it. You'll use anything at your disposal to avoid answering these questions;

I think this is perfect time and place to discuss all the issues that have risen due to my deeds and misdeeds. Cross examining all participants is also part of the process. I am not wasting time of everybody by starting another RfC. You just cannot expect me to answer all the accusations without giving me chance to ask some questions. My questions also clarifies my point of view and my motivation which is part of this RfC.

Again, if you have any genuine accusations regarding my behaviour on wikipedia, PLEASE feel free to file an RfC about me. This RfC however, is about YOUR behaviour.

I have already, reluctantly answered 11 of your unwarranted personal questions here and you abused my goodwill. Two weeks later, you still haven't answered any my legitimate questions;

Why did you blank of the referenced quote from JI’s official site shown here, blank the totally uncontroversial GlobalSecurity.org link shown here and vandalise the referenced direct quote shown here? Veej 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui, this RfC is about you. If you have any concerns regarding some other Wikipedian, go ahead and file an RfC against him or her. From some of your edits, it is clearly evident that you are adding anti-India and anti-Hindu material without giving references. See Terrorism in Kashmir, the article has atleast one reference for each para. Remember that this is an encyclopedia. --Spartian 19:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

We would like to see User:Siddiqui banned from editing Indian history related articles on Wikipedia.
WP:NPOV
WP:NPA
WP:POINT
WP:CIV

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

User deletes all conversations critical of his edits from his talk page. See [13].
[14] Siddqui deletes the Hinduism of Pakistan talkpage [15]
[16]

[17] Siddiqui deletes all references to discussion on Ahmadiyya/Qadianism. Engages in threatning behaviour rather than addressing actual issues. Admits to purposely subverting the authenticity and quality of wikipedia in response to differences with user Yahya01.
[18] Refusal to enter into a meaningful discussion. Evidence of claiming ownership of text of article.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

--Dangerous-Boy 08:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Veej 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Nazli 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Gizza^Chat ^© 23:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipsycho 07:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

I agree with the concerns raised about this user. I am an active editor of the Aurangzeb article, and first became aware of his very POV agenda with these edits. Since then, I have followed his edits on other articles with some concern.

Many of the articles cited in the Evidence of disputed behavior are about controversial topics, where facts are disputed even by so-called neutral experts. Yet the manner in which Siddiqui edits these articles appears not to be motivated by neutrality, compromise, or even a sincere desire to inform with fact. Rather his edits are often belligerent and thumb-in-the-eye insulting. He regularly appears to want a fight.

Particularly disturbing is Siddiqui's continual blanking of comments on his talk page. He is happy to leave his own indignant comments about Aurangzeb on that discussion page, but blanked my response on his talk page. That blanking, however, was minor, compared to the vast removal of any discussion that criticizes his edits, or even appeals to him for compromise. (Praise of his efforts, however, is never blanked.)

I am also troubled that even when blocked on 1 March (24hr) and 4 March (48hr), Siddiqui continued to edit pages as anonymous IP 69.194.136.40. Siddiqui is quite plain that edits from this IP have been done by him.

Other users with equally agressive POVs at least make efforts at compromise and neutral expression. They belong in this community. This user, by contrast, has all the characteristics of a schoolyard bully. I doubt he can be stopped, since he continues to edit as an anon IP even when blocked. --Nemonoman 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: I think the point is getting lost. The problem here is not that Siddiqui has edited articles to reflect a minority POV. The problem is that Siddiqui

Blanks others' contributions...
...without explanation
Removes references and quotes from outside sources that disagree with his POV (not just editor's text)
Blanks discussion of his edits
Refuses collaboration or compromise when offered
Demands that his edits be regarded as authoritative and...
...Accuses other editors of censorship and POV when they are changed
Threatens other editors when his edits are changed
Ignores admin directives on proper Wiki ettiquette (like don't blank discussions on your talk page)
Disrupts WP, creating articles and categories to make rhetorical points
Continues to edit even when blocked

Those behaviors, not his POV, are what has precipitated this action. The enumeration of POV edits above are clearly meant to suggest the motivation for this bad behavior.

On their own, Siddiqui's edits are no more or less inflammatory or POV than those of many other similarly inspired editors. The difference is rather that his behavior is not consistent with the collegial nature of Wiki. All efforts to suggest polite editing behavior have met with resistance, and in the end have failed. This RfC reflects the frustration of those who have invited Siddiqui to play fair. Also note that RfC doesn't demand that Siddiqui be banned from Wikipedia, just from India-related articles, where his behavior, not his POV edits, have proven disruptive. --Nemonoman 15:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

His anti-Hindu and anti-India viewpoint is evident. --Spartian 18:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

He absoloutely refuses to enter into a constructive discussion and instead dogmatically insists on pushing his POV. Nazli 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui on several occasions has blanked comments on his talk page that criticise his decisions or ask for dialogue into a particular matter. I have also noticed his continuous attempts to rid Wikipedia of the term 'Indian subcontinent' - a term that is used rather neutrally and generically in the English speaking world. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I especially agree with Nemonoman and Nazli's assessments. The key descriptions of Siddiqui's behavior are his belligerence and refusal of constructive discussion. Veej 20:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The descriptions of the difficulties of working with Siddiqui are absolutely accurate, but I have to say in his favor that after much wrangling and the intervention of some other editors he agreed to accept the material relating to the same-sex love affair in the Mahmud of Ghazni article, and he apologized for his behavior. I would like to think that he is adapting to the Wikipedia culture, but I have not had any other experience of working with him. Perhaps a period of supervised editing would be helpful. Haiduc 20:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that banning him or preventing him from editing any India related articles is not necessarily the most effective course of action. Maybe if Siddiqui realises why his edits have caused such commotion he will be less provocative. I'm of no doubt that he has knowledge in topics that are not covered in depth in Wikipedia and as such his *neutral* edits would be useful. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with comments of users Sukh and Haiduc that Siddiqui has great potential value as a contributor, and it pains me greatly that some sort of controls are being suggested. Siddiqui, however, has forced the issue. I'm concerned by his disruptive behavior, however. Despite pleas for compromise and cooperation by other editors, and despite threats and blocks by admins, Siddiqui has steadfastly chosen to defy and defend his actions, rather than to make any attempt to play fair. --Nemonoman 01:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment. It is -tiring- to deal with this. The fact that all of these users have decided to bring this to this point shows the level of frustration they have went through. Their is clear evidence of MULTIPLE attempts to make him "see the light." Actions such as this need to have consequences to prevent users making VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS from getting frustrated and quitting. It is not the job of Wikipedia to wait for him to become mature. His actions directly and adversely affect the work of multiple people in improving wikipedia. (Blacksun 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

My sentiments and thoughts perfectly coincide with Nemonoman. I hoped for better from Siddiqui, but I've observed that he is a major POV-pusher, and he lacks a basic grasp that an encyclopedia is all for knowledge and not a battlefield between India and Pakistan or anybody else. Rama's Arrow 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that more than satisfactory amount of effort has been made to make him understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and different parties pushing their own agendas of rewriting history or facts will hurt EVERYONE. I support all actions suggested to be taken against him.(Blacksun 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
More than satisfactory amount of proofs have been gathered. It is unhealthy for Wikipedia having such kind of vandalism going on. The anti-India run by this user is ridiculous. It's a shame. I just checked Bareilly to see if he has even changed India to South Asia there !! Thank god! He has not. I support all actions to be taken against him.--Dwaipayanc 14:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I admire Siddiqui in some respects, but I think that if he wants to be a part of a NPOV organization like Wikipedia, he needs to keep an open mind and stop pushing his POV. Also, the article 'Zebunnisa', which he started and has been the main contributor to, is exactly the same as the biography os Princess Zeb-un-Nissa here. Please explain this apparent plagiarism, Siddiqui.--Le Grey Intellectual 11:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Leifern

I don't think there is any question that Siddiqui is vigorously pursuing his own point of view, and that the quality of the articles is suffering. On the other hand, and perhaps sadly, this is pretty standard conduct on controversial topics. If we're going to ban this editor, I can think of quite a few others who deserve a similar sanction. I don't know what WP should do with conduct like this, but in general there is a great deal of tolerance for this sort of thing at Wikipedia. --Leifern 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but if Wikipedia continues to tolerate such editors, this encyclopedia will never gain a reputation of being a credible source. How about creating an example for other Wikipedians? --Spartian 07:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not concerned about editors with a strong point of view; a bit of passion is not a bad thing. What does concern me is intellectual dishonesty, people who are more concerned about getting their way than getting it right. When two opposing and strongly held POVs collide in Wikipedia, excellent articles emerge with surprising frequency, but only when they agree to be guided by standards set forth in NPOV. Siddiqui's responses to the complaints lodged against him in this RFC are a great deal more tempered than in the cited examples, so there may be hope. Better that he learn and represent his POV honorably and honestly than that he be booted off. --Leifern 17:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What about when certain POV-pushers remove material and references which might be against their POV and add their own and then indulge in long and lengthy revert wars? See Terrorism in Kashmir; the article previously presented both sides of the story with references. But now, after months of flame wars, the article is in such a bad shape, with poor sentence formation and sentences talk about something else and the links they are referred to talk about something else. Now, I don't want to edit the article because I know if I do so, I will enter into a long flame war with some other Wikipedian. Consequence... Wikipedia looses credibility. The Rajput article is another example of what really happens when two strong POV-pushers clash. --Spartian 19:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I share your concern. I can point to articles that I know are a discredit to Wikipedia until and unless someone picks up the gauntlet thrown by POV Pushers and edits boldly and mercilessly. And I am frustrated that the admin community, arbcom, etc. - regardless of the sentiment of some of the individuals involved - seem to shrug off this concern, not seeing that there is a real risk of mob rule. My question is whether Siddiqui is beyond redemption and is therefore the right example to be made of this. Maybe he is, but the examples didn't prompt the incredulous "what the f@#k?!?" that would make this a slam-dunk case. I think this is because POV-pushing, even at its most blatant and abusive, rarely gets sanction at WP. It is only when the POV pushers cross the line and make personal attacks their main pasttime something happens. --Leifern 19:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Leifern 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 08:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zora

I have been involved with some South-Asia related articles, but have never come into direct conflict with Siddiqui. It is clear to me from reading this RFC that he has a strong POV. That's OK! I may not like his POV, but I am sure that he represents millions of people. I don't think that his POV should govern the articles in dispute -- but neither should it be excluded from them. Have the editors reporting him actually let him have part of the article in which to present his views? Or is his POV being summarily suppressed? I have a suspicion that there's some suppression going on (notably in connection with the forced conversions dispute) but I could be wrong. That said, it also seems (if only from his comments here) that Siddiqui believes himself to be in possession of the TRUTH and can be angry, vehement, and persistent in his attempt to make TRUTH prevail. This doesn't help the situation.

I don't think Siddiqui should be banned; that might just make the articles under dispute one-sided. Could some sort of mentorship agreement be worked out, by which an experienced user could coach him on how to make the best case for his views? If Siddiqui would accept this, he would stand a much better chance of getting a South Asian Muslim POV into some of the disputed articles. Zora 12:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Infact Zora, it is the otherway round. It is he who is trying to supress our POV. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 06:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

...some sort of mentorship agreement. This would be an excellent compromise if it is practical.--Nemonoman 16:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that a mentorship must be arranged after a period of ban of Siddiqui from Indian history articles has elapsed. Rama's Arrow 17:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Zora's reasoning is wrong - it is not a question of Siddiqui and other POV-pushers - it is simply a question of Siddiqui himself. You are assuming that banning Siddiqui will mean Indian POV-pushers will get a free run. I strongly disagree and I think that the wider question of India-Pakistan edit wars is not what's being discussed. Rama's Arrow 17:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zora in that I don't think a permanent ban is a good idea. My experience with Siddiqui on Sakastan has showed me that it's possible to convince him with sufficient patience, good references, and completely avoiding confrontational tone. However, I do not agree to including certain POVs simply because they represent the POV of millions of people. This compromise will be an excellent political solution, but probably not suitable for wikipedia. If 150 million people are "educated" to believe that Maratha women were so impressed with the "handsome Afghan soldiers" that they left their Maratha families at once to flee to Afghanistan to marry them, while we know that thousands of women and children were captured to be sold off as slaves; we have no reason to include this imaginative version of history in an encyclopedia as a compromise. deeptrivia (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: The comment regarding the Afghan soldiers edit is a general comment, intended to serve as an example to the point I'm making about the fact that it might not always be correct to reach a "compromise" solution between facts and POVs. I am not implying that User:Siddiqui was responsible for this addition to the Third battle of Panipat article, and I apologise if it appeared that way. deeptrivia (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with deeptrivia on this factual correctness must have a precedence over someones POV. As for ban, I'm only asking for Siddiqui to be banned from editing India-related articles, if User:Shivraj Singh can be banned for revert wars at ONE article then why not Siddiqui who has two dozen to his credit.

अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 07:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not his pov, it is his edit-warring. User:Shivraj Singh was banned for edit-warring and adding text (with a very long bibliography) in one article. Siddiqui was edit warring and deleting text. If Shivraj Singh is banned and Siddiqui not, Indians could rightfully claim that they are discrimininated against in Wikipedia. I'm not defending Shivraj Singh, however Siddiqui's edit-warring, pov-warring and deletions are MUCH WORSE than the edit-warring of Shivraj Singh was. Did somebody complain when Shivraj Singh was banned that Rajput articles would become one-sided? Zora asks: "Or is his POV being summarily suppressed?" But it is Siddiqui who suppresses other pov's by massively deleting them. The edit-warring, pov-warring and deletionist behaviour of Siddiqui is the problem, not his pov. There are many Pakistani and Muslim editors on wikipedia who are entirely responsible and mature editors. Siddiqui is not one of them, at least not in history articles. --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 08:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tintin

I have never interacted directly with Siddiqui but have come across a lot of his edits in passing. Agree with the second paragraph in Zora's comments. Re. the first, there are two issues here - his POV editing and his attitude. As for the contents of his edits, he is no better or worse than many others who have strong POVs. But the problem is that he often appears to be impervious to reason. It is not that he'll break NPA or anything; he'll just ignore your comments and get on with what he is doing. This the real problem. With people with strong POVs you could argue or discuss, with Sidiqui you just cannot get your point across.

Having said that, I was pleasantly surprised by his attitude with the Sakastan article. If he could be half as courteous as he was regarding the edits in that article, he would rarely face problems in Wikipedia. Tintin (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humus sapiens

I agree that User:Siddiqui represents extremist views in WP. One day, he found himself against consensus [19], [20] in Islamic extremist terrorism, so he decided to retaliate [21], [22], [23], [24] at Jewish terrorism. Failing there, he went on to Israeli terrorism [25]. In addition to bringing ummah.com as a reference (an extremist website I would not qualify as WP:RS), edit warring, uncivility, retaliation attempts, he made false accusations at Talk:Jewish terrorism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 08:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

[edit] Muhmud of Ghazni

It is still very difficult to accept homesexuality of Mahmud_of_Ghazni. In any case, the matter was resolved with Haiduc. Check [26]

whether User:Siddiqui finds issues difficult to accept or not is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not an Islamist soapbox. Veej

[edit] Hinduism in Pakistan

There are several issues here:

Indus Valley Civilization being renamed as Sindhu Saraswati Civilisation

Percentage of Hindu population in Pakistan before independence varied from 0.5% to 80% in most districts. The total percantage around 20-25%. I changed from 30-35%, to 20-25%.

Percentage of Hindu population in Pakistan is 1% and not 1.5%.

1.60 according to the most recent census. See the pdf file here Tintin (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed nationalist to fundamentalist in reference to Hindutva.

There was constant underplay and overplay of conflicts depending upon contributor's POV.

Well most books i referred to put it around at 30%, Sindh had around 35% Hindu population while its difficult to get an exact estimate of Hindus in Punjab before partition as the province was divided in 1947. Nevertheless, the original figure may not have been properly refrenced BUT that doesnt give you right to change the figure to whatever number you want.

As for Sindhu-Sarawasti Civ, you try to dissociate Sindh from Hinduism. Yes Aryans did call the area Sapta-Sindhu but Indian-Subcontinent was all means a single cultural entity back then. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey

Fine. Each and every figure will be referenced from reliable source

[edit] Quadanism

That issue is still unresloved.

It is unresolved because you have been persistantly refusing to enter into a meaningful discussion as demonstrated here [27] .Nazli 18:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This guys hatred of Ahmadis is astonishing. Just check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmadiyya_Muslim_Community&diff=41786061&oldid=41776325

I do not need to translate the word 'Kuttay'. Its known to all Urdu speakers. User:Wikipsycho

Check [28] Revision as of 17:21, 1 February 2006 194.83.242.250 (Talk) This change was made by 194.83.242.250. I never wrote those words though I have reverted that version without read each and every word. Can you please check your allegations before making them here.

[edit] Third Battle of Panipat

check [[29]] someone made those changes Revision as of 21:09, 6 January 2006 71.109.107.17 I just reverted to his changes. I did not read each and every line added by that person. I do accept the charge of reversion to his changes. I also found it NPOV when somebody accused me of writing this line.

[edit] Ala ud din Khilji

There were too many links discussing same issue. In any case, I did remove some links

[edit] Mughal Empire

The forced conversions did take place but not to extent that these allegations were presented. Over 95% conversions were due to Sufi missionarries whole role is completely neglected.

Provide the sources or shut up. Ibn Battuta's description of Islamic India is a tell tale. Muslim sources themselves emphasize that SWORD not SUFISM was biggest yielder of converts. Read books by historians like Stanley Wolpert, or "White Mughals" by Dalrymple (who cant be accused of Islamophobia). Yes many may have converted under sincere beielef but the role of forced conversions and social compulsions like jizyah did contribute to increase of Muslim population in Indian subcontinent oh...err... isnt it called South Asia and Greater Middle East.

अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sakastan

Guilty as charged. I read several articles on Sakas and Sakastan on the Usenet. I thought it existed. At the end I did accept the reality and the page has been has been odified by AMbroodEY

[edit] Kashmiri Freedom Movement

From Pakistan's perspective it is Freedom Movement and from India's perspective it is terrorism

The point mentioned above is about you hogwashing history to make India look bad. --Spartian

You complain about India looking bad while the heading of the article Terrorism in Kashmir also makes Pakistan look bad.

Terrorism is Terrorism have guts and balls to say what your "freedom fighters" are doing in J&K. LeT, JeM Hizb all nicely fit the decription of terrorist organisation and have been called so by United States and UN. And the point is does Terrorism in Kashmir contain any falsification? It not about making a country look good or bad, Wikipedia is not a PR organisation.

अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the name of the article is unacceptable. You can consider changing the name to more neutral Militancy in Kashmir. '

The world would have called it "militancy" if those so-called "freedom fighters" targetted only the Indian Army and those associated with the Government of India. But targetting innocent civilians.. thats terrorism. When the Indian National Congress started a voilent campaign to drive out the British from India, they targetted British army and government officials, not civilians. Many of these organisations do except the fact that their main motive is to drive out non-muslims from Kashmir.. is that a freedom struggle or some insane religious struggle? The world is not blind Siddiqui. --Spartian 19:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aurangzeb

Fine

[edit] Jamaat-e-Islami

Yahya01 also had an agenda

What agenda? --Spartian

before page is locked user:veej requests a discussion but has no response.

user:veej never contributed to that page before. He was adding anti-Muslim propaganda to many Muslim related pages. I asked him about his motivation and the genocide in Gujarat, in his home state. He never answered my question about genocide. May be he also has one sided view that I am being accused of .

user:veej never contributed to that page before what? What is this point relevant to? user:veej does not add anti-Muslim propaganda, I add referenced information from notable sources. Though again, this is irrelevant. The Talk:Jamaat-e-Islami is for discussion of issues related to that page only. I would normally refuse any personal questions, but as a gesture of goodwill, an attempt towards resolution, I answered all of his personal question about me. He asked me 11 personal questions before i eventually gave up, whilst he refused to answer any legitimate questions regarding his blanking of referenced quotes from Jamaat-e-Islami's own website.Veej 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

after page is locked user:veej again attempts reasonable discussion but instead is subjected to a bullying interrogation while User:Siddiqui refuses to discuss issues regarding Jamaat-e-Islami edits.

The bullying interrogation was on the issue of genocide in his home state. I just wanted to know whether he has even small regret to genocide in his home state. But he was only interested in adding anti-Muslim propaganda.

User:Siddiqui has no right to ask personal questions of/interrogate any wikipedian, no matter how much he just wanted to know. user:veej lives in London an knows nothing about the genocide in Gujarat, but again this is irrelevant anyway. If I am shown an incident of my "anti-Muslim propaganda" or indifference to genocide in my contributions in wikipedia, then i can defend my actions. But there are no genuine accusations here, instead just belligerent mud-slinging.Veej 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What personal questions ?

He says that he lives in London and knows nothing about genocide in his home state. But knows a lot about Jamaat Islami and other Muslim organizations. Has he contributed any intellectual discussion on these Muslim pages ? He has only added links to anti-Muslim websites and news webpages. Anybody can look up at list of his contributions.

'I am being dragged into a inquisition to defend each of my Wikipedia entry and other personal questions. I guess some people don't like when their actions are being questioned. But they want to ask other people questions. In any case, I will answer all my accusors.

How is "Are you motivated by hate or love", not a personal question? If you have any genuine accusations regarding my behaviour on wikipedia, please feel free to file an RfC about me, rather than use your contempt towards me to deflect criticism of your own actions. So you feel the BBC, The Times, The Guardian etc are anti-Muslim? Most of the world seems believe that the notable mainstream western media are simply against belligerent Islamist extremists, but of this depends upon your own perspective. I’m stunned by your insincere holier-than-thou tone because it’s you who initiates unprovoked "inquisitions".Veej 22:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You never contributed to any Muslim page except adding anti-Muslim news links. I asked you 'Whether you are motivated by hate or love' because I checked your list of contributions and your user page that clearly showed that you are from Gujarat state where a genocide occurred few years ago. You are completely oblivious to genocide in your state but are very excited about adding new anti-Muslim links to these Muslim pages. So genocide is fine and dandy with you but violent cartoon protests are crimes against humanity.

You are the one that wants this inquisition but don't seem to like when I ask you few questions about your contribution to Wikipedia. I don't mind being quizzed on every Wikipedia entry. I will also take advantage of this oppurtunity to ask you few questions.

Like I said before, if you have any genuine accusations regarding my behaviour on wikipedia, please feel free to file an RfC about me.

You're displaying the exact same behaviour again. You are deflecting attention away from answering direct questions about your own actions here at wikipedia. To say "I don't mind being quizzed on every Wikipedia entry" is simply a bare faced lie. You have never justified your blanking of the referenced quote from JI’s official site shown here. Nor have you justified your blanking of the totally uncontroversial GlobalSecurity.org link shown here. Did you just dislike it because "security " was in the name of the website? Nor have you justified your vandalism of the referenced direct quote shown here, to mention just 3 of the myriad of other appalling actions shown on this page.Veej 23:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You have already proven that you don't care about genocide in your own state but are more concerned about maligning Jamaat Islami. You are not interested in taking part in Jamaat Islami page but only in adding links to anti-Muslim propaganda. I don't have to start RfC we are already discussing this issue and everybody has read your views on this subject.

So you still refuse to answer questions regarding your edits on wikipedia? You're completely ignoring the 3 points i just made. CAN YOU READ? ARE YOU MENTALLY ILL? Veej 01:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Veej writes: CAN YOU READ? ARE YOU MENTALLY ILL? . This inquisition degenerated into name calling. This whole exercise seems futile now. I thought we can resolve many, if not all, issues with this discussion. I am neither emotional about this RFC nor I have any ill feeling about any participant here. There is life after Wikipedia. Anybody who has some decency should review this post by Veej and make their own conclusions.

Degenerated? This exercise can only be futile if you stubbornly refuse to answer questions & ignore points made. Veej 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this civil. Read WP:NPA. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism at "UK Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy" page

I sometimes forget to login as Siddiqui so my IP address show up. I run WindowWasher that cleaean all the unused files from my computer but also removes login info to Wikipedia and email websites. I am not anonymous like my accusers. My full legal name, email address, photo and my family website is listed in my user page.

User:Siddiqui has had 13 day to own up to that anonymous vandalism but has chosen not to. He still has given no explanation for vandalising a referenced quote. His actions there were either edit warring but probably closer to simple vandalism.Veej 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)