Misplaced Pages

User talk:BhaiSaab

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Observation Post (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 21 February 2007 (→Thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:47, 21 February 2007 by Observation Post (talk | contribs) (→Thanks)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

My Story

I see a sockpuppet. The sockpuppeteer states he's Hindu. The sockpuppet claims to be Jewish. I don't assume good faith of the sockpuppet for three months (because policy does not require me to extend the courtesy) while, at the same time, the admins are oblivious to the fact. Arbcom decides that I had been right about the sockpuppetry. The sockpuppet is banned. I am banned for my behavior while having assumed bad faith. That behavior includes "being anti-Semitic" (or as I would say it, defending my country's President) to a sockpuppeteer who Blnguyen now knows is actually a Hindu. Admins are all off the hook for their failure to see what a normal user could see for three months. Can anyone tell me if this would have happened if the admins knew, like I knew, that I was speaking with a Hindu and why Iranians can't praise their President? BhaiSaab 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the tip of the iceberg of your disruptive editing. Arrow740 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
And of course, a member of the "anti-Muslim brigade" replies first. BhaiSaab 01:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That entire case was a lot more than a case of sockpuppetry and assumptions of bad faith against a possible sockpuppet. Nobleeagle 06:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In case you don't know (but I think you know it), BhaiSaab is even not allowed to edit his talk page to reply you. So your last comments about the case are unnecessary caustic, mean, and not very... noble. TwoHorned 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My comment did not need reply, I think we can all agree that it wasn't a case of finding a sockpuppet and getting rid of him? So I cannot imagine that BhaiSaab would disagree with me on that point, if you believe he will then delete my last two comments and please explain why on my talk page. Nobleeagle 04:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That case was about sockpuppetry and disruption. Sockpuppetry was a part of it, and it was used for disruption. We all know that. TwoHorned 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
NinaEliza 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye

See you BhaiSaab! (→Netscott) 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good... hopefully we'll both be around. I suspect you may "pop" up in the meantime though... lol! Take it easy. (→Netscott) 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar

This case is now closed and the results have been posted above.

For the Arbitration committee, Cowman109 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My only sockpuppet is him. If you attempt to do some sort of defamation by labeling every user from my uni as a sockpuppet of mine, I'll be sure to have some fun around here. BhaiSaab 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

It was nice to have an Iranian voice on the wikipedia. Hope to see you back. Don't screw up your time-limited ban by sockpuppetry; a year ain't that long. -- Kendrick7 05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)