Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Babbarshair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Babbarshair

  • Comments:

Since I have been accused of vandalism and sockpuppetry, I see it appropriate to presnet my case. Ipcheck is also a matter of privacy therefore before adhering to any requests its important to check the background of the case.

  1. phippi46 who has filed this complaint was banned on 10 January for 3RR , in which he repeatedily deleted whole sections from the article (check [1]).
  2. In his request he has selected code-C (Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism) and has given the refernce of the offensive picture. Please see Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in which all the relevent points are mentioned in detail. You can also check relevent user pages to see details of a discussion in which things are discussed comprehesively. On what account then its vandalism?
  3. In the end I withdrew the picture not because we reached at some conclusion, but becuase it was taking too much time which unfortunately I didn't have. So we reached an agreement, to freeze this issue for some time.
  4. Rather than contributing anything to the article phippi46 has chosen to delete sections and creating unnessary POVs. If you see Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, all of sections which he didn't like are properly referenced. Although pro-Ahmadi, Long term contributors like User:Nazli was extremely patient and we had a very healthy and constructive discussion.

I therefore, expect that we first resolve these issues on talk pages as mentioned in the criteria for WP:RFCU rather jeoperdising peoples' privacy. His sock puppetry charge based on (Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism) is not qualified as I have presented above, and its better if it to be refered to the talk pages. --Babbarshair 07:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Comments from phippi46 It is clear to see and read the talk pages and also to see the Artical itself that it is full of POVs and Weasel wording mostly added by Babbarshair, he was clearly explained all the policies of wikipedia but he dont want to change the povs and weasel wording, and in his openion, the information he is providing on this page is 100% correct. Most of this new information including the offensive cartoon, is based from one Anti-ahmadiyya web site which is known for its biased nature. he was approached by User Nazli as well to explain him the nature of the page and the policies of wikipedia, but so far any major changes. He removed offensive cartoon only for a short time being, but he did not said that he understand the meaning of an offensive cartoon policy, because it seems that he still belief that what he is doing is right. I am sorry to say, we are not encourage to put our point of views on Wikipedia. My reques of check user is justifiy, as this artical was vandalised many time by many users and some time unknown users.

I strongly reject his accusations of vandalism. Check my comments and follow the discussion. Check also user history in which he has contributed nothing except deleting passages from the article. He was clearly warned for 3RR, but didn't listen. I am not concerened whether its a sockpuppet or not, as Jimbo Wales has said: "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason" (from sockpuppet ). As a matter of principle, Users failing to discuss things on their talk pages and then post ipcheck requests is unreasonable and should be referred back. And before talking matters to other forums, where is the warning for sockpuppet on the user talk pages? I accedentely came across this page and found my name. If he was posting some complaint he should have warned the users first, as they might be unfamiliar with the policies. I don't see any such warning. Anyway I think I have said what I wanted to say.--Babbarshair 14:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is clearly stated in Weasel Wording Policy that these words should removed immediately from any Artical, my suggestion to User Babbarshair to read this Policy first 2nd he seems not to get the point or dont want to understand the Policy of POVs, as he was involved puting POVs in Artical. Both talk pages of my account, his account and the talk page of Artical Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and talk page of user Nazli can be check to verify this. In my openion puting an offensive Cartoon called Vandalism and insisting not to remove it or revert back again and again in the Artical is called Vandalism. As this Artical was vandalised many time before, from users and some time unknown users, the case being made against User Babbarshair as his attitude towards POVs, Weasel wording and style of editing, may be work of a Sockpuppet, so request to clear this matter once for all.phippi46 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to comment on this. You can (check [2]) and get an idea of his contributions to the article. He was warned clearly on his talk page for WP:3RR but chose not to follow. The artwork he is talking about is clearly within wikipedia as similar depictions are present on other pages. --Babbarshair 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for your message on the checkuser page of user Babbarshair. The Artical in dispute being Vandalised many time before, some time by registered users and some time by unknown users. The reason I made this complaint that if you see the latest editions, the two sections namely [3] and the [4]

are full of POVs and sourced to a Anti Ahmadiyya Website which is known for its biased nature. These section were full of Weasel Words as again source of these reference are one or two Anti Ahmadiyya sites. However, It is not a problem, if these section sources to these websties, but the general concept for a reader when reading these section is that these statements are true in nature, which in reality are highly controversial. 2nd user user:babbarshair added an offensive cartoon in one of these sections, and for a long time he was insisting to keep it, arguing that it is well under the policies of Wikipedia. I dont know at the moment that is there any policy regarding puting offensive cartoon against some one to demanise someone, but i am sure that wikipedia will not allow that. User babbarshair was contacted many time by me and user Nazli as well, to explain the nature of Artical and request to maintain the neutrality of Artical, so far no result. He did remove offensive cartoon for a time being saying that he may add it again untill the matter resovled. I request you to pls read the respected Talk pages of user user:Babbarshair, mine and user user:nazli to know the explainations and requests that being made to him. 2nd account of user user:mastiboy was also created almost same time and the style of writing and level of knowledge are same, both user claimed to be new commer on Wikipedia but have alot of system knowledge. Once I replied to user:mastiboy someting, and its reply came from user:babbarshair [citation needed]. I suspect a sockpuppt either user, that was the reason to filed a request to check user and ip address as well.

Finally the image of an section like Controversial Deaht in this artical gives that a person who die with cholera, is accursed death and was sign from God !! a reader may asked if some one die with Cholera is it really accursed death, and who allow Wikipedia to judge this ? In wikipedia weasel words policy, it is clearly mentioned that when weasel words found in an artical, they should remove immediately, and that what I did in order to keep the neutrality. I hope this may expain the situation a bit, I am happy to be avaiable for ur any further quries. phippi46 15:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was created and written exclusively by User:Nazli as respected longtime contributor, I only added a statement of Mirza with references. --Babbarshair 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The user:babbarshair has also put copyright protected material on this Artical and specially in these two section which I mentioned above, both referenced web site are Protected by Copyright Laws of respective countries and also It is against the Wikipedia Policy of Copyright Material. I am removing Vandalism and Weasel Wording and Copyright Material from the Artical in order to make it neutral, and this is well under the Basic Principals of Wikipedia. phippi46 16:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments:

I don't see it necessary to repeat my case, for details see (talk). If you see the discussion on relevent talk and discussion pages, it would be clear that the accuser has not only failed to discuss things there, but also was vandalising himself for which he was banned (check [5]). He didn't contribute to the article and removed highly referrenced sections unnecessarily. Since, here he is for vandalising sockpuppets. I would like to ask how any of the above mentioned users have involved in code-C (Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism)? If you go through the edits you will find that its a bad faith inclusion, and he is compormising the privacy of the users. --Babbarshair 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: This is not a forum or place to discuss POV issues. I expect 'Clerks' to ask user to present his case for which he has made the serious allegations. --Babbarshair 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Due to time constraints I would not be able to pursue this anymore. Jimbo Wales has said: "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason" (from sockpuppet ). As a matter of principle, Users failing to discuss things on their talk pages and then post ipcheck requests is unreasonable and should be referred back. Even if sockpuppetry is used please check first if it qualifies for serious vandalism charges as stated by the accuser. You can check their edit history to verify it. --Babbarshair 17:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note • This discussion is refactored from the checkuser request. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)