# Steward requests/Checkuser/2021-09

Jump to navigation Jump to search

## Requests

### SIXBUGFLY@zh.wikipedia

•  Confirmed SIXBUGFLY, AAZZOOII, AASSDDFFPP, ทักษะการสื่อสารไม่เพียงพอ, 匆匆快, (account revdeled in logs)

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

### XooZooJin@km.wikipedia

•  Confirmed CamBOJARa, XooZooJin, 7HKB67, 9KHMdNG, SinMinJoon, XinVinJin, Jimmysinka, Jinmieki, Kimsaso, Kimsaa Sok, Sok Kimsa

All locked. --Sotiale (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

### HiiiMill@km.wikipedia

Confirmed(all locked). From now on, please post on SRG, not here, of such obvious cases. --Sotiale (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sotiale: Sorry, what is SRG? Can you give me the link to the page? I am assuming it is metawiki:Steward requests/Global. --Trezoo (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

### Rəşid Nurməmmədov@az.wikiquote

This user has been editing on azwikiquote almost every day, and the continuation is the same as the normal editing of Wikidata. There seems to be insufficient evidence for compromised account situation, is there any other one? Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sotiale: Yes, that's right. However, these edits are not normal : [1], [2], [3] and so on ([4], [5]). Also, I sent a message him regarding this issue. But he did not answer.--Turkmen talk 20:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Done. I did some investigation but found no evidence that this account was compromised. This user's data is the same as the previous activity. So no action is taken. --Sotiale (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention.--Turkmen talk 23:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

### Brian850528@zh.wikipedia

• Unrelated Brian850528, 白稜

Yes, obviously they are different. --Sotiale (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

### CXPathi@ta.wikipedia

@AntanO: Hello. Some data is expired because GangadharGan26's last contribution is too old. Therefore, only comparison between accounts Tamil.lgbt and Vetrrich Chelvan is possible. Please explain in detail what kind of vandalism they have and what causes the disturbance. Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
These users are aggressively edit / change on articles on Grantha use and LGBT terms. ta.wiki has Grantha use guideline and LGBT terms are not like English, and they have to edit based on reliable sources. But, these users ignore the rules and go wild. Sometimes they discuss like forums. I have warned when a user personally attack user.--AntanO 15:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Unrelated Tamil.lgbt, Vetrrich Chelvan

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

### Tuankiet2021@global

More than a spammer, Tuankiet2021 looks like a new editor doing the usual novice mistakes trying to write about non-notable subjects and being mad at them articles being deleted. I see that both have contributed to vi:Võ Tuấn Kiệt and apparently Simplevtk is asking for the article to be restored at vi:Wikipedia:Ứng cử viên bài viết tốt/Võ Tuấn Kiệt which could mean sock or meat puppetry. If they're being disruptive, local blocks could be issued. It doesn't look like CheckUser would be needed here. In any case, the only projects where Tuankiet2021 and Simplevtk have both edited (and where a comparison could be performed) are vi.wikipedia and ko.wikipedia. Both have their own local checkusers. This request is therefore declined. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I found some other accounts here, but won't bother you anymore.
Unnamed UserName me 16:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

### 星辰傳@zh.wikipedia

Not done. The sleepers check is implemented very limitedly to prevent users who continue to create accounts for a long time, including LTAs, from causing disturbance in the project. I'm not sure if this is the case that sleepers check is possible. --Sotiale (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

### Suresuremoon@zh.wikipedia

Hi. I hope you can explain why this checkuser should be processed. For example, it would be nice to explain why this can't be a duck, and what's obscure. --Sotiale (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Judged from past experience, they could also be a meat. A checkuser would be preferred than a duck. Itcfangye (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
If this is meat, you can't find their relationship as a checkuser. In order for this request to be processed, you just need to explain why they were hard to see as duck. As long as this is explained, this request can be processed. --Sotiale (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Local admin reviewed this case and marked as a duck. Consider it withdrawn? Itcfangye (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

### Iamasuperstar@zh.wikipedia

•  Confirmed Group 1: Iamasuperstar, Serili
• Likely Babyert and Group 1

• Likely ドラえ and Group 1

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. Jonathan5566(talk) 13:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

### O0yiu0o@zh.wikipedia

Comment I didn't find a relevant discussion on local HAM page. Can't decide if there is consensus. --Super Wang (Chinese Wikimedian since 2009 | Greetings from Dalian) 23:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a general CU request from the sysop. If time is urgent, maybe not much discussion is needed? 01:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that it is an urgent case, we can keep the article on hold until the CU process is complete. I hold the same suspicion after reviewing their editing history, but can't confirm if they are obvious sockpuppets to each other. Inputs from HAM may be necessary. --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse · Contributions ) 13:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I proposed a local discussion. https://w.wiki/43aJ 14:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
On hold until discussed in zhwiki HAM. --Sotiale (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• It seems like there is no objection in local ham, and (after taking a look at their contributions) I think a checkuser is needed. Itcfangye (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Confirmed LIHKG AULD LANG SYNE, O0yiu0o

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

### Walter Grassroot@zh.wikipedia

•  Oppose: Transferred the request to meta without local consensus. --Yining Chen (Talk) 14:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• The consensus was 8-3 support, plus the opposing side was unable to explain the anomaly. Do note that local dissucsion is not a vote but to discuss whether or not the reason is substantial for a search, and the opposing side fail to suggest otherwise. Please stop filibustering-AINH (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment As you know, no steward likes to have a local discussion here. Please do not leave any additional comments. --Sotiale (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sotiale: Pursuant to WMF actions, please go ahead for the CU check to see if such account is created for block evasion.--1233 T / C 18:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Possible Walter Grassroot and 9bowls

• They are thought to be using the same VPN.

My personal opinion is closer to Likely, but this is just my personal opinion, not the checkuser result. If their behavior patterns, contribution styles, and fields of contribution are the same, I would consider them to be the same users. Your job is to analyze whether these users have the same pattern. --Sotiale (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Since Walter Grassroot is a globally banned user, would 9bowls be applicable for a global ban as WG's sock? 09:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
If your local community determines that the editing pattern is the same, it will be the same. --Sotiale (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

### Marco56333@zh.wikipedia

• Dunno if it is too late but User:Mumu9901 had also only edited zh:林芙芙. This account was not included in the local discussion but can you check it as well? Thanks-AINH (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• It should be noted that Marco56333 made a block review, thus checkuser is necessary. Itcfangye (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Unlikely Marco56333, Tmc210523

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

### S941644@zh.wikipedia

•  Confirmed Stephen0822, Hcflow1234, S941644, Kami0919, Littlechili, WeiweiKuo, SMAT2019

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

### 黄身 白身 赤身@zh.wikipedia

Hi. I will review this tomorrow. --Sotiale (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
It looks like you have 2 cases, but why are they merging into one request? --Sotiale (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I merged it earlier because users in both cases edited w:zh:日本 with mobile devices and none of them have a user page. After a second glance of these users' contributions just now, I noticed that users in case 2 seem to have a different edit pattern than those in case 1. If you agree, we can restructure the request by splitting them back into two. Itcfangye (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Confirmed James GLAYTARS, Remote control 80, 黄身 白身 赤身, Tktk dkdk, 안녕하세요 중국, くまの条さん, Jlmdmja, DIAMOND WAr2, Antjum, Jkamum, Jtumne, Admkak, Lenrxvup, 壁鐵漢, Twtwtkrp, Ccctnajtp, Ktjxtxtj, Mdwjdtp
• Unrelated 神秘人2333, 劉承暘

Case Kuyo agerishas is not carried out in this investigation. Please note that the sleeper investigation is very limited and difficult to proceed(for case Kuyo agerishas). --Sotiale (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

### Michaelwu101@zh.wikipedia

Unrelated. No, they are different users. --Sotiale (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

### NITISHWAR C 55@ta.wikipedia

•  Confirmed SARANYA K 082, SOWMIYA J 093
• Unrelated HARI PRIYA K 2029, Nishanth V R 2056, ARMITHA J 08, Swatha D

Technically they're all unrelated, but it feels like the type of spam on Wikidata. If this is spam, they may be from the spam company. I hope that local will analyze and respond to their editing types. --Sotiale (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

### Tmc210523@login.wikimedia

Unfortunately, the data of Adad01023 must have expired on loginwiki. Therefore, it seems that abuse on commonswiki should be proven and start there. Otherwise, if xwiki abuse is clearly demonstrated, zhwiki may initiate an investigation of it. --Sotiale (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sotiale: Tmc210523 has no local account on commons, either. Itcfangye (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Asking the question differently, why should their relationship be proven? Preventing abuse is expressed, but what that abuse is is not fully explained. --Sotiale (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sotiale: The full rationale of this request can be found here. In essence, the abuse is that the second user listed is repeatedly adding images that clearly violates the commons guidelines, shown commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:自拍11.jpg and commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Catcodle.jpg, and the first user listed is repeatedly adding content that the second user uploaded into zh.wiki, shown zh:Special:diff/67552807 and zh:Special:diff/67554045. --${\displaystyle \int }$） 08:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I would suspect it to be more like meatpuppetry instead of just simple socks given the investigation Steward_requests/Checkuser/2021-09#Marco56333@zh.wikipedia previously done, which is noted in the the rationale of this request (link posted above). If you (Sotiale) determined that CU is not necessary, this request can be transferred to SRG for further review and global locked for cross-wiki abuse, adding user Marco56333 as well given the new evidence here. --${\displaystyle \int }$） 08:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reconsidered it a few times, but a different space seems to be a better fit. I don't think this would be of much benefit from checkuser; their technical information is unlikely to be useful. If their pattern is clear and it's obvious abuse, I recommend going to SRG. Anyway, thanks for your detailed explanation. --Sotiale (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

### Ch.AhmedRaza23@ur.wikipedia

•  Confirmed Ch.AhmedRaza23, TanzoMazakh, AReditorPK

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

### Omina2@zh.wikipedia

•  Confirmed Kamerju, Omina2

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

### 請不要亂刪^^@zh.wikipedia

• Note: All users have a similar user name with 不要亂 (lit. "do not indiscriminately"). Yet 不要亂風 denied their relationship with the others. Itcfangye (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a different opinion on HAM. --Sotiale (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed it. I am considering withdrawing and separating the case. Itcfangye (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Further local discussion in progress with clear evidence 請不要亂刪^^ is a different LTA (through contributions). A separate request for 不要亂風 will be raised in local. Itcfangye (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

### Xsaorapa@en.wikiquote

Done - MonstrumVenandiXXXII is still on a proxy, same as Steward_requests/Checkuser/2021-07#TwoHorned@en.wikiquote. So this is Inconclusive. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @AmandaNP:. So to clarify, this means, nothing can be said if JonMilkins is the same user as MonstrumVenandiXXXII? Thank you. -- (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Correct, from technical data, nothing can be determined. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

### Xsaorapa@en.wikiquote

Not done. Well, I'm not sure if your continued request should be processed. I recommend that you use only one account. --Sotiale (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sotiale, please see my reply. I am feeling misunderstood I am stressed with many thing so I hope this does not appear as un, I will try to rewrite in next 72 hours and also I speak not native English.

I'm not an active user on wikipedia anymore, is or was that not clear? (It is noted on userpage I left and was long ago) Can only active users ask here? It is mainly because of the issue of genocide denial that I have asked on this page despite that I am NOT an active user anymore now. I had an account but I left last year due to medical reasons, I have not edited since that year (except with one short lived account of 1 or 2 days where I did not note password) and since I left It was even written on the userpage I left and I cannot login anymore since I left. It was written on userpage I left. I mean a very short 10 seconds check could prove that there was no editing at same time. There was a note and I did never edit at SAME time, there was a break of months. Where does it say on this page that only active users can edit here? Since I left I thought of coming back with new account but only edit 1 or 2 days then left and forget now I did not not note the password anymore and cannot login. But there was only one account for one same time, not two at one same time. There was no socking and it only takes 10 seconds to verify. Does this mean one cannot edit and ask here? If only active users can ask and edit here it should note this on this page? I only report because I see vandalism but I am not active, I left wikipedia. I think that makes it clear I only used one account at same time, what else can I do if I cannot login into an account without a password and it even said clearly I left with a note on userpage and retired user template?

The sock account was not checked although there was evidence of ACTUAL socking with SEVERAL accounts editing AT THE SAME TIME. This is actual socking. But instead, my account was checked even though a 10 seconds check would prove that there was no socking, that I did NOT edit at same time with two accounts (there was a break of MONTHS in between accounts) AND there even was a note on my userpage. If I can make a suggestion it is that checkusers could make preliminary checks before checking? It would take 10 seconds to check my user contributions and see if the dates are matching. Like checking if the accounts did sock or not, if they did edit at the same time or if there was a break of MONTHS in between? If there was a break of MONTHS in between because of leaving and password and even noted on userpage, it cannot be socking (when there was a break of MONTHS in between). But while my account was checked even though a 10 seconds check could prove there was no actual socking, the sock account was not checked even though I showed evidence of socking.

This is what the sock user added to the Wiki (with external links):

• Behind the Myth of 3 million
• The articles constantly call the genocide a myth and a fiction.
• The article calls for a vigorous rejection of the myth of the genocide (Is that not genocide denial?)
• It quotes genocide deniers who claim there were only 2000 complaints of deaths at the hands of the Pakistan Army.
• It claims that instead that the mass graves were not Bengalis killed by the Pakistani army, but Bengalis killed by Bengalis.
• And there is much more such genocide denial

But the facts are that there was a genocide.

Please read these statements:

• English journalist Philip Hensher wrote: The genocide is still too little known about in the West. It is, moreover, the subject of shocking degrees of denial among partisan polemicists and manipulative historians.
• Like the Japanese during World War II and the Red Army in its victorious march through Eastern Europe in 1945, the West Pakistanis were singularly devoted to raping any women in sight. Many were repeatedly raped in their homes or on the streets and then killed. Many were taken to military installations where they were kept and raped repeatedly, in some cases until they died. According to one report, for example, 700 naked women were liberated from the army cantonment at Moinamati.46 Of those women that survived the war, perhaps 200,000 or more may have been raped, at least according to a postwar figure that gained wide currency. R.J. Rummel, DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, by R.J. Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994
• The locals said there was widespread rape. This was confirmed by Sydney Schanberg of the New York Times, who, interviewing refugees in India, found that almost all of them were Hindus, who said that they were still specifically hounded by the Pakistan army. Schanberg remembers, “There were stories about rape by the Pakistani army, and those were true. Story after story. It was quite clear this had really happened.” Bass, G. J. (2014). The Blood telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a forgotten genocide. ch 16
• 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. ... Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land ...Rape in Bangladesh had hardly been restricted to beauty... Girls of eight and grandmothers of seventy-five had been sexually assaulted ... Pakistani soldiers had not only violated Bengali women on the spot; they abducted tens of hundreds and held them by force in their military barracks for nightly use.... Some women may have been raped as many as eighty times in a night Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape
• Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak[istan] dominated government and to lessen any deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy, (...) But we have chosen not to intervene, even morally, on the grounds that the Awami conflict, in which unfortunately the overworked term genocide is applicable, is purely an internal matter of a sovereign state. Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional civil servants, express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected. Archer Blood, "The Blood Telegram"
• “The story of East Bengal will surely be written as one of the greatest nightmares of modern times,” declared Edward Kennedy... Senator Edward Kennedy quoted in Bass, G. (2014). The Blood telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a forgotten genocide.
• [It is] almost entirely a matter of genocide. On June 15, 1971. Kenneth B. Keating, ambassador to India, to R. Nixon and Kissinger. quoted in Gary J. Bass. The Terrible Cost of Presidential Racism Sept. 3, 2020 [8]
• Am deeply shocked at massacre by Pakistani military in East Pakistan, appalled at possibility these atrocities are being committed with American equipment, and greatly concerned at United States vulnerability to damaging allegations of associations with reign of military terror. Telegram by Kenneth Keating
• “I know of no word in the English language other than massacre which better describes the wanton slaughter of thousands of defenseless men, women and children.” Kenneth Keating, quoted in Bass, G. J. (2014). The Blood telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a forgotten genocide.
• Field reports to the U.S. Government, countless eye-witness journalistic accounts,reports of International agencies such as World Bank and additional information available to the subcommittee document the reign of terror which grips East Bengal (East Pakistan). Hardest hit have been members of the Hindu community who have been robbed of their lands and shops, systematically slaughtered, and in some places, painted with yellow patches marked "H". All of this has been officially sanctioned, ordered and implemented under martial law from Islamabad. ..' report dated November 1, 1971 Senator Edward Kennedy. Crisis in South Asia - A report by Senator Edward Kennedy to the Subcommittee investigating the Problem of Refugees and Their Settlement,Submitted to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, November 1, 1971, U.S. Govt.Press, pp.6-7. Quoted in Benkin, Richard L. (2014). A quiet case of ethnic cleansing: The murder of Bangladesh's Hindus., p. 75.
• Kill three million of them, and the rest will eat out of our hands. Yahya Khan at a meeting in February 1971
• I covered the war and witnessed first the population's joyous welcome of the Indian soldiers as liberators .. Later I toured the country by road to see the Pakistani legacy first hand. In town after town there was an execution area where people had been killed by bayonet, bullet and bludgeon. In some towns, executions were held on a daily basis. This was a month after the war's end (i.e. January 1972), ... human bones were still scattered along many roadsides. Blood stained clothing and tufts of human hair clung to the brush at these killing grounds. Children too young to understand were playing grotesque games with skulls. Other reminders were the yellow "H"s the Pakistanis had painted on the homes of Hindus, particular targets of the Muslim army. The Pakistani Slaughter That Nixon Ignored, Syndicated Column by Sydney Schanberg, New York Times, May 3, 1994. Quoted in Benkin, Richard L. (2014). A quiet case of ethnic cleansing: The murder of Bangladesh's Hindus., p. 75.
• The human death toll over only 267 days was incredible. Just to give for five out of the eighteen districts some incomplete statistics published in Bangladesh newspapers or by an Inquiry Committee, the Pakistani army killed 100,000 Bengalis in Dacca, 150,000 in Khulna, 75,000 in Jessore, 95,000 in Comilla, and 100,000 in Chittagong. For eighteen districts the total is 1,247,000 killed. This was an incomplete toll, and to this day no one really knows the final toll.R. J. Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.
• Hindus were sought out and killed on the spot. As a matter of course, soldiers would check males for the obligated circumcision among Muslims. If circumcised, they might live; if not, sure death. R.J. Rummel, I. Horowitz, Death by Government. 1977. p. 323, quoted in Mohit Roy 2009, quoted in R. Benkin, A quiet case of ethnic cleansing (p. 35) Benkin, Richard L. (2014). A quiet case of ethnic cleansing: The murder of Bangladesh's Hindus.
• The genocide and gendercidal atrocities were also perpetrated by lower-ranking officers and ordinary soldiers. These "willing executioners" were fueled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority. "Bengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens. Said General Niazi, 'It was a low lying land of low lying people.' The Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [should] best be exterminated. As to the Moslem Bengalis, they were to live only on the sufferance of the soldiers: any infraction, any suspicion cast on them, any need for reprisal, could mean their death. And the soldiers were free to kill at will. The journalist Dan Coggin quoted one Pakistani captain as telling him, "We can kill anyone for anything. We are accountable to no one." This is the arrogance of Power. R.J. Rummel, DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, by R.J. Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994
• In 1971, the self-appointed president of Pakistan and commander-in-chief of the army General Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan and his top generals prepared a careful and systematic military, economic, and political operation against East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). They planned to murder that country’s Bengali intellectual, cultural, and political elite. They planned to indiscriminately murder hundreds of thousands of its Hindus and drive the rest into India. And they planned to destroy its economic base to insure that it would be subordinate to West Pakistan for at least a generation to come. This despicable and cutthroat plan was outright genocide.
After a well-organized military buildup in East Pakistan, the military launched its campaign. Within 267 days it killed about 1,500,000 people, turned another 10 million into refugees who fled to India, provoked a war with India, incited a countergenocide of 150,000 non-Bengalis, and lost East Pakistan. R.J. Rummel, DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, by R.J. Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994
• But the most horrible of all was the army’s attack the following day on the poor shanty-town area of Dacca’s old city. Over 1 million people lived there, along a jungle of winding narrow streets and alleys, and they were strong supporters of Sheikh Mujib. For twelve hours soldiers systematically razed one area of the old city or another. Gasoline was poured around blocks and ignited. People trying to escape the flames were shot down. Streetside squatter colonies were especially vulnerable and were destroyed by tanks. As the massacre proceeded, whole families were killed together. One can easily picture the horror and panic of these poor people as they jumped from windows or ran out of buildings and down streets and alleys to escape the flames, bullets, and tanks.21 It was no accident that this was mainly a Hindu section — it was part of the plan to kill large numbers of these “infidels” and to terrorize the rest into fleeing the province. R.J. Rummel
• Overall, in the first days of slaughter in Dacca, possibly 7,000, to 10,000 civilians,22 or 15,000 overall,23 maybe even as many as 50,000,24 were killed. If we just take the lower estimate of 10,000 as the number burned to death or shot in cold blood in Dacca, this alone would make it an incredible, premeditated act of mass murder. But within months the death toll throughout the province would be over 100 times this number. This, done by the authorities of an internationally recognized government. R.J. Rummel
• At least ten thousand civilians were butchered in the first three days. The eventual civilian death toll has never been placed at less than half a million and has been put as high as three million. Since almost all Hindu citizens were at risk by definition from Pakistani military chauvinism (not that Pakistan’s Muslim coreligionists were spared), a vast movement of millions of refugees—perhaps as many as ten million—began to cross the Indian frontier. To summarize, then: first, the direct negation of a democratic election; second, the unleashing of a genocidal policy; third, the creation of a very dangerous international crisis. Christopher Hitchens
• Kennedy declared, “Nothing is more clear, or easily documented, than the systematic campaign of terror—and its genocidal consequences—launched by the Pakistan army on the night of March 25th.” Invoking the Holocaust, he said that Hindus were being specifically targeted, “systematically slaughtered, and, in some places, painted with yellow patches marked ‘H.’ ” He blamed the Nixon administration for much of this: “America’s heavy support of Islamabad is nothing short of complicity in the human and political tragedy of East Bengal.” Ted Kennedy

So how is that not genocide denial? Why is this not seen as a problem here? Is that not evidence that this was a genocide and the edits genocide denial? Why is this user not checked despite all the evidence of socking and genocide denial?

It is because of the issue of genocide denial that I have asked on this page despite that I am not active user anymore.

### 不要亂風, 渝晴@zh.wikipedia

•  Confirmed 不要亂風, 提出想法
• Unrelated 渝晴

From a technical point of view. --Sotiale (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)