Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for continuance by Hkelkar

1)Request for a 5-6 day continuance for the following reasons:

1. Finish gathering evidence to prepare my case (my evidence portfolio is only partially complete as of now)
2. Recruit an advocate from the AMA group to assist me with these proceedings. Given the formal nature of the Arbitration process I think I may need some counsel before I proceed.There usually is a slight backlog in teh AMA case load and I have only informally initiated contact with an advocate.I would like to pursue teh AMA matter since I have had a very productive interaction with the organization in the past.

Hkelkar 12:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

 Clerk note: There is a minimum of a week's grace period before the arbitrators begin considering the case, and it is usually more like 2-3 weeks considering the work load. There should be no problem in taking a few days to gather your evidence. Thatcher131 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of the AMA, I'd like to apologise for the time it's taking to get an advocate. With this being an RfArb, we're going to have two advocates running the case, myself and one other. I'll take the case up as "second advocate" once someone else takes it too. Thanks -- Martinp23 15:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Martin and I have agreed to take on HKelkar's request for advocacy. Given that it's AMA's fault, not HKelkar's, that he didn't have an advocate, I would request that the arbcomm wait another week or so to see what we can put together, and that the members keep an open mind. Thanks, and sorry again for the delay, TheronJ 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion to postpone closing by six days

1)Regarding this motion to close the case, I would like 6 days to prepare my closing arguments and submit more evidence. My advocates and I have been preparing more information and we would like some time to present it so that we may make further suggestions to ArbComm.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hkelkar 06:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I find it difficult to believe that Hkelkar didn't have time to prepare his statement for a case in which he was so involved and yet manage to make close to a thousand edits despite preparing for finals. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First you say you want a continuance and that you won't edit to study for finals. Then you make a thousand more edits, the arbcom denies your first continuance, and now you ask for a second one. If this is being done in the interest of hearing the full side of Hkelkar's case, then we must also consider the fact that you're evidence section is, by far, the longest section on the evidence page. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Would this be possible? As Hkelkar has been preparing for his finals over the past few weeks, and for other reasons, we've not been able to prepare an arguement fully. It would be greatly appreciated if, in the interests of hearing the full side of Hkelkar's case, the ArbComm could postpone closure until we can get a statement prepared (withHkelkar's help). Thanks Martinp23 17:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You will have to get at least one of the 4 arbitrators who has voted to close to change his vote, or get one of the 4 remaining arbitrators to oppose closure, since closure requires 4 net votes. At this last date I suggest messaging the arbitrators personally or sending an e-mail to Arbcom-L at Wikipedia dot org. What exactly is your goal for this new evidence? How do you think it will change the outcome? (Replies to the talk page, please.) Thatcher131 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Compile a list of my productive edits and show that they have been better than those of BhaiSaab or TerryJ-Ho.I'm not looking to wiggle out of punishment. That is out of the question. I am requesting for reduced punishment. Hkelkar 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, the charade simply must stop. In my opinion no amount of evidence at this point can stop you from being banned, if it's only more evidence against others. It's already taken up the time and energy of many earnest volunteers trying to build a World Encyclopedia to deal with this.NinaEliza 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Charade? This is her attitude after this post? I request ArbComm to ignore NinaEliza's vacillatory statements and incivil attitude.Hkelkar 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - Hkelkar isn't a one-minded tendentious editor unlike certain users. His edits are quite diversified among many subject areas and they arent limited to contentious Indian/Hindu/Islamic articles.Bakaman 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral Point of View

1) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Srikeit 06:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Entirely agree. However, virtually all politics and religious articles on India-related matters have a systemic leftist bias, with the other points of view unexpressed and , when expressed with sources, instantly reverted, insults of "Hindutva POV posting machine (see User:TerryJ-Ho's comments on "evidence page")" thrown around, racist (and anti-semitic [1] "Neo-Jew" this is a new one from Ambedkaritebuddhist) by wikipedians, many of whom are involved here. Hkelkar 07:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. A natural pillar of WP and a fixture in all arbcom "principles" motions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. However, a correct level of NPOV should reflect the proper balance of opinion on a particular subject, with viewpoints that are marginal in the set of significant POVs stated as being so. (This is a paraphrase of the second clause of the sentence of which the first clause is above.) WP:Bias enjoins us to edit to remove systemic bias from WP; what it does not say is that if you believe that the world at large has a systemic bias, then WP should not reflect it. We dont change the world directly through our editing, we report it. Hornplease 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree MerryJ-Ho 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously support. Disagree with hornplease. Hkelkar 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly agreeNinaEliza 02:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I started the whole "vote" thing without comment - I didn't understand that this page is for reaching a consensus. Please don't follow my example.NinaEliza 22:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to assume good faith, and to observe Wikiquette, civility, writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Srikeit 06:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, wholeheartedly.Hornplease 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. A natural pillar of WP and a fixture in all arbcom "principles" motions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely needed MerryJ-Ho 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite.Hkelkar 13:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly agreeNinaEliza 02:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

3) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Srikeit 06:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. A natural pillar of WP and a fixture in all arbcom "principles" motions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed MerryJ-Ho 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a policy which has been totally forgotten by many involved in this case. Agree with Srikeit. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly agree. NinaEliza 02:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

4) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Srikeit 06:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed.However, edits are not "propaganda" if stated in a neutral narrative and attributed accordingly. Bear in mind that this also applies to the leftists (it hasn't so far, they have had free run to use any and all biased sources, including Islamist web sites and hate sites, to advance their propaganda).Hkelkar 07:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh.) Agreed. Hornplease

Endorse. A natural pillar of WP and a fixture in all arbcom "principles" motions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. TwoHorned 20:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly agree. NinaEliza 02:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring is harmful

5) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Srikeit 06:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the sheer number of blocks garnered by users for 3RR amazes me.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. A natural pillar of WP and a fixture in all arbcom "principles" motions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. TwoHorned 20:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree MerryJ-Ho 13:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this. We have seen months of edit-wars as mentioned by Blnguyen in his statement. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. In fact, I propose more specific article/section tags as an alternative to edit-warring. Hkelkar 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, yes, yes! If anything needs to be shouted from the rooftops here, this is it. --Xiaopo (Talk) 08:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Very strongly agree. NinaEliza 02:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I started the whole "vote" thing without comment - I didn't understand that this page is for reaching a consensus. Please don't follow my example.NinaEliza 22:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

6) Accounts and anonymous ips which mirror the behavior of another user may be treated as though they are that user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Srikeit 06:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it should be noted that Shiva's Trident has been inactive for a very long time. If Hkelkar is found by ArbCom to be Shiva's Trident, he has still commited no crime as he has not used a sock to evade 3RR, or evade blocks or do anything other sockmasters do. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes he has. If Hkelkar is a sockpuppet, then the August 21st block of Shiva's Trident was evaded and he has also been fooling and lying to administration. BhaiSaab ^talk 06:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that I am a sockpuppet, then wikipedia has an implicit policy of statute that renders the sockpuppetry case moot (see my argument on evidence page).Hkelkar 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The sentence you're referring to ("cases of sockpuppetry older than one week are useless") only applies to reporting sockpuppetry cases on that specific page. It's not at all a universal policy that applies to all pages and makes no claim to be. Arbitrators are free to look at long term sockpuppetry however they want. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that it points to a reasonable precept of statute. Whether it applies strictly or not is a decision that ArbComm has to take.Hkelkar 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what 'mirror' means here. Any reasonable person would want to remove the damage that Kelkar and Bakasuprman have done to most articles they have edited, but does that mean that all such accounts can be treated like they are puppets? Hornplease 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mirror" can be taken to mean "to imitate." BhaiSaab ^talk 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I find allegations of "the damage caused to most articles" laughable. Also considering I am one of the more prolific non-admin Indian editors, the charges are quite baseless. Hornplease had an issue with nearly every category I created with the word "Hindu" in it, and always tried to empty the categories as fast as I had created them. Any editor in Hornplease's words is taken to mean "any editor who subscribes to my world-view that is magnetically repelled by Hindu editors". I still fail to understand why. Many users have similar POV's to other users, though many editors dont show it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the talkpage. Hornplease 07:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. A natural pillar of WP and a fixture in all arbcom "principles" motions. Note that the IPs and the accounts are assumed to be socks or impersonators, however the party cannot be held automatically reesponsible in case somebody is spoofing them or trying to frame them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, unless checkuser evidence has established that the accounts were used to make bad-faith edits, reversions or to commit edit-warring/revert-warring. I don't think this is proper here. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

With the condition that the editors are not evading any blocks. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree - If the parties use them to evade bans and continue behaving as before MerryJ-Ho 13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this. Wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is clear about this issue. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly disagree. NinaEliza 02:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support. The wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry is quite clear on this point, and I don't see how there could be any contention to this by anyone that isn't guilty of doing this themself. Of course, we have to Assume Good Faith - perhaps they just forgot to login - but many people use this, in conjunction with or sometimes without, open proxies, to circumvent blocks. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my opposition. I saw the assertion and thought it assumed bad faith. I honestly thought I was being neutral. I should have read the comments that were already posted before I posted anything myself. I also should have read the Wikipedia policy on Sockpuppetry before I posted. I'm very sorry, and I feel like an idiot for having done that.NinaEliza 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also very sorry I apparently started the whole "vote" thing - I didn't understand that this page is for comment only. Please don't follow my example.

Disruptive editing

7) Users who disrupt using aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Srikeit 06:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Single-agenda POV-pushers people should be banned from editing articles that touch on the POV they push. If they are contributing elsewhere, then that history should not logically affect the punishment, as the consequences to the encyclopaedia will be overwhelmingly positive on both sides. Hornplease 18:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That applies to you as well. All of your edits are overwhelmingly disparaging to Hindus.Hkelkar 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to substantiate that, and put them in an appropriate section in the evidence page. Hornplease 08:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. A natural pillar of WP and a fixture in all arbcom "principles" motions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. TwoHorned 09:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly agree. NinaEliza 02:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive

8) Anyone who removes any statement that is sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand is being extremely disruptive (exceptions are defamation of people or explicit copyvio). Users with issues regarding edits need to discuss in the talk page first.Users who violate this need to have preventative measures taken against them without demur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Hkelkar 07:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Very true. On the 2002 Gujarat Violence page, while I used reliable mainstream Indian newspapers, the side opposed to us used advocacy groups and political party fronts. I time and time again asked them to look at WP:RS but to no avail.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure The New York Times and The Times are advocacy groups and political party fronts. There was a discussion about them here in which Bakasuprman and Shiva's Trident advised against using their articles covering the topic. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue was qualifying the bias of the New York Times, which has been done.Hkelkar 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - it was about qualification, dont spread one-sided half-truths BhaiSaab.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And I wonder, Hkelkar, if this proposal applies to your recent edits to Indian caste system, where you removed sourced material. [2][3] BhaiSaab ^talk 05:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And yours [4][5]Hkelkar 17:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your misrepresentations, fortunately, do not count as sourced material. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The pot calls the kettle black.You have consistently lied about what the sources say.Hkelkar 19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Which sources would those be? BhaiSaab ^talk 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The sources I cited, which verify my edits, but do not verify your tendentious modifications of the same.Plus, your cited sources are, of course, always suspect.Hkelkar 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly agree (Ironically - per my section on evidence page)NinaEliza 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - WP:NPOV is only one guideline edits must follow. There is also WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting edits that are within the bounds of wikipedia policy after superficial discussion is disruptive

9)Anyone who wishes to change an edit. Starts a discussion on the talk page that is not substantive (for instance, saying "That edit is biased blabla" without pointing out what precisely are the issues that the editor has), then reverts the article edit in question by saying "rv per talk" is being dishonest and should be effectively treated as proposal 8) above.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties

Proposed. -- Hkelkar 07:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Support, I have asked users to highlight or cquote sections they have issue with, and no users so far have took me up on the offer.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly agree (Ironically, this is a good point - please see my section on the evidence page)NinaEliza 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Endorse. A natural pillar of WP and a fixture in all arbcom "principles" motions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what many editors involved in this case think wikipedia is. It must be made clear that this is an encyclopedia and not a battleground to wage battles on the basis of caste, religion or nationality. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly agreeNinaEliza 02:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ban due to disruption

2) Users who engage in activities which are extremely disruptive may be banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Endorse. A natural pillar of WP and a fixture in all arbcom "principles" motions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree but need to mention that this policy can easily be abused and has been in the past. Quite a few disruptions have happened and no preventative action taken. How does one decide what actions are disruptive?People have moved pages without consensus and have been extremely disruptive in Dalit Buddhist movement and no action has been taken.I will elaborate on this matter soon. Hkelkar 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The enforcement of ArbCom decisions is up to the ArbCom itself, Hkelkar. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly AgreeNinaEliza 03:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Agree Hornplease 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree TwoHorned 09:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Harrasment is Disruptive

1) Harassment is a very serious and disruptive activity and should be avoided on and off Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Hkelkar 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 00:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Harassment may result in a block or ban

1) Editors who harass other editors may be blocked or banned for an appropriate length of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wholeheartedly Support - WP:STALK. Amazingly creepy how this Arbcom is playing out.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Support.Hkelkar 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 00:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Misrepresentations by User:TwoHorned,User:Xiaopo User:hornplease and User:TerryJ-Ho

1) User:TwoHorned,User:Xiaopo User:hornplease and User:TerryJ-Ho are making statements on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence that are skewed and based on selectively quoting diffs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please evaluate the statements made on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence by users User:TwoHorned, User:Xiaopo and User:TerryJ-Ho as they do not reflect the whole situation. They have selectively quoted diffs and made accusations that do not conform to reality.I cannot go through so many diffs alone, but I request help from ArbComm to evaluate the entire situation and independently contact involved parties like User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (whose comments have been cited by the parties).Hkelkar 05:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this proposed "finding of fact" is a bit useless. This is the standard argument in every arbitration case - it's the arbitrators jobs to figure out what's skewed and what's not. I would argue the same thing about your points about myself, but again, I think it would be useless. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The finding would not be useless if it quoted a diff or two which illustrates the point, but it does not. As it is, it is just rhetoric. Fred Bauder 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on this. It will take some time to sort through their accusations.Hkelkar 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Propose dismissal This finding of fact is little more than an attack on the other side of the dispute, and should be taken as such. Hkelkar - it is to be expected that you do not believe the evidence of the opposing side of the dispute. Instead of making statements like this here, why don't you post the diffs you feel they have glossed over in the Evidence page? ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole purpose of this fact finding proposal was to establish that the users in question were misrepresenting diffs. They are many and I am but one. It will take time for me to discuss their evidence point by point (particularly given that I will slowly become less active due to approaching exams). Their obvious strategy has been to keep posting misrepresented information in the evidence page and intimidate me with their determination. Hkelkar 21:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Response Hkelkar, please assume good faith on their part. Whether or not you agree with their viewpoint (obviously you don't), they obviously believe that they are in the right, and are not doing it out of vindictiveness, but because they feel they are right. I do not feel that they are trying to intimidate you, and unless you can substantiate that claim i suggest you retract it. In either event, if you are going to make such a claim as misinformation of their part, I would suggest that you back it up, or the Arbitration Committee cannot be expected to follow it up. They take the role of judges, not investigators - you must provide evidence for them to read into if you are going to make a claim. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by TerryJ-Ho

1) TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made personal attacks "fascist right wing hindu mentality"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is part of a pattern of abusive comments made by TerryJ-Ho against some wikipedians.Notice the following statements [6] (particularly the insulting phrase "Hindu killings") as anon ip 82.44.188.125 (he admits he's Terry in this summary [7]).He also insets irrelevant nonsense in several pages, such as this advocacy case filed by me regarding Tipu Sultan, where he tried to waste the advocate's time with unrelated and useless cruft as a deliberate attack on a scholarly point of view [8] making accusations of "Hindu Fascist" involvement where there clearly is none. This entire section of his (title included) in the arbcom evidence page is another such attack [9] (see my response also). Also, he has made similar attacks against User:Nobleeagle (see this).Hkelkar 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, he spammed Talk:Tipu Sultan by putting irrelevant nonsense that can be construed as a personal attack against me [10].Hkelkar 01:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• HKelkar is confusing the statements by his advocate as judgement on the editing in Tipu Sultan page.

"Irrelevant Nonsense?" - may be for you but you are not the only reader/editor of Wikipedia..The link in question tells you what the Hindu fundamentalists want by rewriting the history and biography of Muslim rule/rulers in India..and you had removed that stuff from the talk page (against the Wikipedia policies)as if you are the only one reading that talk page..As far as I know you agree to being a supporter of Hindutva, RSS and the Hindu right wing.Many scholars have equated this ideology of Hindu fundamentalism - with Fascism and fascist tendencies.MerryJ-Ho 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that there are serious questions regarding Hindutva, however you are attacking other users. That is the issue. In a proper context, you are quite welcome to cite verifiable sources which equate Hindutya with fascism. That is not the issue. Fred Bauder 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.Condemnant quod non intellegunt. Besides, wikipedia is hardly the place for any "Condemnantry".Hkelkar 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't established that any of my refs are from the "Hindu Right". You have tried to attribute motives to my edits, which is a personal attack.Hkelkar 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus, many scholars have also established that claims of "fascism" in Hinduism is bunk.Hkelkar 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: "Hindu killings speak" in that sentence refers to the usual habit of HKelkar,(Shiva's Trident)and Bakasuprman of mentioning of supposed genocide of Hindus during the Muslim rule in India..(again pseudo historical ideas from Hindutva)MerryJ-Ho 17:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the claims supported by secular authors both in India and the west per my references. I admit there is a controversy, but you want to stifle all views from the other (correct) side, that Muslims committed some of the most grevious atrocities against Hindus.Hkelkar 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, see User:TerryJ-Ho's virulently bigoted statements against Hindus as reported by User:Nobleeagle and User:AMbroodEY here and here. Of course, User:hornplease rushes to defend him, only to be expected and reinforces my query for Arbcom to investigate his distortions, half truths and outright lies.Hkelkar 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you wish the ArbComm to make a finding of fact about my editing, please provide diffs of my distortions,half-truths, and outright lies, in the appropriate section on the evidence page. This is my third time of asking. If you do not do so, please desist from making repeated accusations.Hornplease

I have reviewed the links above and see no defence of Terry-J-Ho. Hornplease 08:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this finding. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Support.Hkelkar 03:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing by Bakasuprman

2) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in tendentious nationalistic editing [11].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Three Months Ago. Is this seriously all? One edit out of 2000 before my first wikibreak (8/20-22) was found to be nationalism. BhaiSaab also managed to selectively quote the first of a string of four edits that removed original research (about non-existent Hindu orgs). See the full string of edits here where I added the Archaeological Survey of India as a source to better the article. I created over 60+ articles and have 8 DYK's, what does BhaiSaab have to show? Any DYK? Any good-class articles? Zip. Only a desire to malign users he disagrees with, using outdated "proof" to further an impotent argument.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're confused. I never cited this edit of yours and hence, the diff was not taken from my evidence or statement. Making good edits does not excuse making bad edits. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is a pattern of edits before my last block (9/2) and a pattern of edits after my last block (Its been 2.5 months). I'm not confused about anything, except that I'm confused how you can't reconcile the fact that the majority of users I interact with (who all know full well which pages I edit) dont come to such imaginative and whimsical conclusions.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What conclusions would those be? I've noticed that most of the time your edits can be described as "nationalistic", you don't do so on your own accord, but do so because you feel some need to defend Hkelkar/Shiva's Trident's edits. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont have any "Nation" to protect except America, on which I havent made any edits of a "nationalistic American" fashion.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, per my evidence and long experience. Please ignore my statement below. Hornplease 08:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your experience is irrelevant. I notice you're still talking down to users, a well-worn tactic tht I am used to. I'm not the raw user you interacted with, I know your your game and all your evidence shows is that there was someone on wiki to thwart your POV, and you were angry because of it.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already provided diffs to a statement from months ago that you could no longer be considered a newbie. 'My experience' that I quoted above was to indicate that I have had two years of dealing with and observing difficult editors, and five months with you, and you are, in my stated opinion, the most disruptive. Making that statement is not 'talking down' to you unless you are assuming the worst of bad faith. Hornplease 03:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I never told you to "get off wiki", "get a blog", "live with it" or anything. You on the other hand, tried many times to tell me to "get out". Its called karma.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent examples should be used, if applicable. Many new users, including some who have gone on to great heights have made editorial edits in their early career. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, as I state above. I have restricted myself largely to examples following his first block, RfC, and consequent 'reformation'. Most of my evidence is from mid to early October. Hornplease 07:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I find you view is a fringe view, not shared by the Majority of users I interacted with. Perhaps you may want to see what non POV-pushing users have to say about this (including non-Hindu editors like Ragib (talk · contribs) [12] and Anupam (talk · contribs) [13]) and respected admins like Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) [14], Utcursch (talk · contribs) [15] and Bhadani (talk · contribs) [16] .Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that none, save one, of the comments you have linked to above invalidate the hypothesis that you are a tendentious editor. The one that does I believe should be looked at very closely. Hornplease 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

See WP:V and POV. Also Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your fringe views. You're just unwilling to see that wiki is a different place than the one you left, and that opinion from constructive editors towards has made a 180 degree turn. All the statements state that I am a constructive editor (and since constructive is the opposite of tendentious they do invalidate fantasies of "tendentious editing"). I find it funny you came back to wiki to spite me, which is a violation of wiki is not a battleground.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your civility and misquoting of WP policy. (For example, 'soapbox' applies to political tendentiousness, which is precisely what you are accused of, not me.) That you are constructive in certain areas does not invalidate the finding that you are tendentious and disruptive in other areas. That is precisely the point I have made already. And what does WP:V have to do with anything? Seriously. Hornplease 13:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What about your actions on Brinda Karat? Constructive and tendentious are logical inverses, it does invalidate your "Theories". Unfortunately for you, I've learned from my mistakes of trying to prove things to you. The only person actually accused of misquoting policy is you, for issues not directly related to Hkelkar. WP:V. Can you verify any users besides POV-pushers and users prone to racism have supported you? This disqualifies every user that is opposing me here on this arbcom and many others that you might try and find. In the words of TerryJ-Ho "repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it truth". That applies to the "points" you have supposedly made.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You're making no sense, again. If you wish to explain what you're on about, other than stating that everyone who thinks you're a problematic editor is a POV-pusher and a racist, tell me on my talkpage. Logical inverses, indeed. Hornplease 12:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you actually respond to my arguments? Well the argument is true that every user opposing me is a POV-usher and/or racist (see BhaiSaab antisemitism, you actions on Brinda Karat/Psec, TerryJ-Ho's anti-Hindu statements, etc.). I have however worked well with editors who I disagree with, but who dont think wiki is a battleground. See CiteCop (talk · contribs) and JFD (talk · contribs) for examples of editors who are probably diametrica;ly opposed to me that I collaborated with. I'm starting to see a pattern in your responses (which I cant believe I was too stupid to notice before). If you cant disprove a statement I made, you repeat the same things over and over to try and keep me off subject. It wont work anymore. Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually asked you what your comments were about. I dont try and keep you off subject, I try and make you respond to my questions, or acknowledge my arguments and respond to them. Consider the fact that I have pointed out that you can be simulateously productive in certain fields and yet disruptive overall; that has not stopped you from repeating to me about how 'constructive' you have been in a numerical sense. Which statement of yours have I shied away from either confirming or disproving? Please do let me know. As I stated on the evidence page -with substantiating diffs - however, it seems to me you wilfully ignore it when your concerns have in fact been addressed; this necessitates those in a discussion with you having to bringing it up again and again in different ways.

Also, while I have no opinion on Terry-J-Ho's POV, and am definitely going to avoid comment on BhaiSaab's personal views, though I have already accepted his tendency to POV-push. I am shocked that you attempt to put me in the same category. I note that you did not present evidence to that effect. Hornplease 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have provided ample evidence to the assertion, while you put a whole list of misacharacterised half-truths. You have proved nothing, escept perhaps that you obviously have a better command of the english language. Nobody agrees with your wild assertions that constructive editors can also be tendentious editors. See your comment above proves you are trying to make the argument proceed according to your whims, and you obviously are failing. Well its established now that you quote policies for the heck of it to annoy users [17]Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Hkelkar 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This user is not being directly examined in this arbitration, or my evidence section would have been four times as long. I find the words 'majority' , 'imaginative' and 'whimsical' above sadly characteristic, and am getting out of here before he applies them to me. Hornplease 18:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that this was proposed by an arbitrator, I think they are examining all users, not just Hkelkar. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This point should be seen in context, as the said article(s) where Bakaman has allegedly "edited tendentiously" has many vandals that delete text and Bakaman simply reverted them. Hkelkar 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Support If the arbitration committee finds the edits to be disruptive in this way, this is the naturally following finding of fact. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I think more recent examples should be cited than August. I have had lots of positive experiences with Bakaman in the recent past. If he says he has transformed since September, we should assume good faith unless we find evidence to the contrary — Lost^(talk) 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I have cited many, many examples, most of them from October. Hornplease 12:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? You tried to cite Brinda Karat, where my arguments were well sourced and where you tried to run my DYK into the ground using partisan fringe sources. Anyway its perfectly obvious you're opposing me to get the edge in content disputes. Lost is correct in noting that nearly all the diffs (except JMS) are from August or when I was newbie.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your specific errors on the Karat page have been set out in the diffs. And the Indian Express, IIRC the Nanavati source, is not a partisan fringe source. And if you call adding material to an article you created "running it into the ground", the inference for any observer is obvious.

Also, it is inaccurate to state that nearly all the diffs are from August. On the contrary, merely three or four are. Most are from late September and October, as a cursory look at the diffs will substantiate. In particular, look at part (6). Hornplease 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I kept the criticism section well-sourced and after learning about the affiliations of the Organiser, found mainstream sources for criticism. On G.T. Nanavati you refused to provide the Indian Express link, merely saying "there is an indian express link". Why not bring it to the table then? No you used unreliable partisan sources to back up shoddy arguments defaming a respected judge. That is definitely a vio of WP:BLP. Oh and you misrepresented your "evidence" section. More than 50% of the diffs are from early september or before. Half of number 6 deals with you using unrelaible sources to defame judge nanavati. I call addaing defamatory material running it into the ground, and if you call adding fringe nonsense "adding material", a person could infer that you have a POV to push and therefore it would be correct to note that you are a POV-pusher due to actions which tend to whitewash the actions of the "secular" parties of India and a desire to attack the Hindu parties in India.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Refer to the diffs for the 'unreliable partisan sources' in question, a reprint of the Indian Express, and the number of recent diffs; overwhelmingly the last few weeks before I left WP. (In case anyone is wondering how Bakasuprman could think the Indian Express was an unreliable partisan source; let me explain that I could have quoted the article from proprietary sources, but chose to link to a freely available online reprint instead. Bakasuprman seems to continue to seize on that aspect of things; that is enough evidence for me being a POV pusher.) Oh, and Baka: again, not about me. Hornplease 23:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is WP:RS. Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retroactively trying to falsely redefine diffs according your POV on WP:DE is not defining tendentious editing. It merely brings to primacy your large assumptions of bad faith, and attempted use of later accepted rules to define edits undefineable under those circumstances. Your evidence is uncitable under those circumstances, because the edits did not fall under categorization at the time, and attempts to paint a different picture of history show a disconnect with the present reality of editing.22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And here I swore to myself I wouldnt respond further to anything you posted. This is too difficult to pass up, however, so I would like to point out that WP:DE helps to define how one may recognise a tendentious and disruptive editor the same way in which WP:OR determines how to recognise original research. Obviously the identification is applicable retrospectively. Are we to surmise that had WP:DE been passed earlier you would have ensured that you did not satisfy its criteria? Hornplease 05:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "we"? The identification is not applicable retrospectively, otherwise every editor that's ever been in a conflict on wikipedia is by definition a tendentious editor (because even opposing a vandal means "you are editing even with opposition from one or more editors". WP:ORwas one of the first policies on wikipedia, you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Who are you to define me edits? You think every edit I make implies a slant, therefore I am under no obligation to answer bad faith statements like these, where you suggest every article I made carries my POV slant. Seems other people agree that you dont interpret policy correctly. What really makes a tendentious editor is someone that is going to no end to get good faith contributors banned (see all posts by you attacking me), opposing consensus (practically all non POV-pushing, non-racist users), and trying to drive me people from wikipedia by telling them to "get a blog", "live with it", etc. Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Being 'in a conflict' does not imply things about editing pattern and dealing with disagreement that WP:DE does. (a) ONce again Bakasuprman seems to assume that disagreement cannot be handled without behaving disruptively. (b) Please dont quote my interaction with Nick without the whole conversation; I have indicated that already. (c) If you are going to make further accusations, theres a section for it. (d) For the twelfth time, 'Live with it' was not an aggressive suggestion, but one suggesting you calm down; 'get a blog' was not said as a peremptory command, was not said to you, and should be seen in context. I notice Bakasuprman keeps on 'quoting' them rather than cease, or even respond to my criticisms of them. Hornplease 11:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice you are still chugging along on your bad faith attempt to get constructive editors banned from wikipedia. I have had disagreements with many users, most of them arent POV-pushers. See JFD (talk · contribs) and CiteCop (talk · contribs) as examples. I respond unfavorably to bad faith accusations and malicious untruths, kind of like the one above. I have responded to all your "criticisms" and such. You on the other hand, have tried to push the discussion your way, and are now stifled, because I have grown educated to your games.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: A person editing the material related to his/her heritage in a manner that gets him/her as many awards as it has gotten Baka is merely editing on what intrests him/her. If people want to misrepresent that as nationalistic then that in itself is misrepresentation. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Provocative behavior by BhaiSaab

3) BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a series of provocative edits to User talk:Hkelkar and other pages [18] [19] [20] [21] [22], *"Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place.". See this comment by Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Substantially revised Fred Bauder 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Please read this for context regarding such inflammatory statements.Hkelkar 01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuff like he "likes Ahmadinejad" I don't consider that outrageous, millions of Iranians do. The problem is the context he is making the statements in. Fred Bauder 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He is allowed to like anyone he pleases. What he did here is make inflammatory statements demanding the genocide of Israelis. Hkelkar 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Its meant to inflame. I dont insult Islam or say "(insert Moslem country here) should be wiped off the map". Its the pattern of racism documented here that is bothersome. BhaiSaab has had trouble with another Jewish editor here as well.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the other side of this argument User_talk:BhaiSaab/A6#Criticism Hkelkar 02:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Where does Dev920 say she's Jewish? I never demanded the genocide of anyone. Please don't misrepresent my statements. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Israel shouldn;t be on the map" clearly indicates that you would prefer it be "off the map" ie eradicated ie genocide.Hkelkar 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. If you didn't notice, Israel wasn't on the map for quite a long time. That doesn't mean all of the inhabitants of what is currently Israel were dead. What I mean is that Israel, as a state, should not be on the map. See Ottoman Empire. The arbcom can evaluate my statement for themselves without your silly interpretation of it. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider making statements like this. On Wikipedia you share space with Jews, including both Israelis and Zionists. Fred Bauder 04:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Israel existed for quite a while (Eretz Israel I mean) until it was destroyed in the 1st millenium.Of course, your statement above seems to downgrade your demand from full scale genocide to ethnic cleansing of Jews, which is still fairly anti-semitic. Hkelkar 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What does the Ottoman Empire have to do with ethnic cleansing of Jews? You're being ridiculous. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements attacking the existence of a particular nation-state, while naturally guaranteed by WP philosophy, should be viewed as inflammatory if used to incite a response. I can see practically no circumstances when expressing an opinion of that sort will help advance the project. That being said, lingering on the statement once made is as pointless; a large number of people across the world might feel that way, and we cant fix the way they think through this arbitration.Hornplease 18:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that he said it, meant to provoke me with it, and he needs to keep his anti-semitism to himself.Hkelkar 01:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab asked me to comment about this. He feels that the magnitude of this behaviour is lessened by the fact that he has alreadsy concluded that Hkelkar is Bose, and thus a "disguised Hindu". In this case, he may still want to explain why he made this comment, if it is thus irrelevant. Having said that, this turned up at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18_Indian_caste_system where Hkelkar accused opponents of "go Ahmadinejad on my edits and censor them altogether" - this is a metaphor for annihilation of his edits and is a "wiki"-representation of the Holocaust, claiming that other users want to Holocaust his edits. As such, it would be in BhaiSaab's interests to clarify whether his comment "Ahmadinejad is awesome" [23] in response to Kelkar is an endorsement of the Holocaust. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not interpret Hkelkar's statement to be a "Holocaust his edits" as I do not associate Ahamdinejad with the Holocaust as much as many other editors may do. Considering that he is the President of the country in which I was born, I think of him as a normal President with some controversies and I took offense to Hkelkar using his name in such a manner. He is hailed by many Iranis as a great leader and I think the same. And no, of course I do not endorse any holocaust of Jews - that would be quite evil. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Support Hkelkar 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I also think that such BhaiSaab's behavior is uncivil and highly provocative to say the least. WP should not be used to incite extremism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

More provocative behavior from BhaiSaab:

1. [24]"confirmed sockpuppeteer"
2. [25] Incivil edit summary
3. [26] Again
4. [27]Speaking for another, and attacking my Jewishness again Hkelkar 08:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this finding. I have warned BhaiSaab twice in the past not to bait Hkelkar. But I don't see any improvement in his behaviour. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation by Shiva's Trident and Bakasuprman

4) Shiva's Trident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted copyright violations [28], When removed, Bakasuprman reinserted it: [29] [30] (source of part of the material source of the rest)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a copyvio added by Shiva's Trident. He later added some book names within <ref>'s to make it appear as if it were not copy and paste. See the talk page discussion on this and compare the text on these websites: [31][32]. You'll find pretty much each and every sentence quite easily if you use Control + F on your browser. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that. Fred Bauder 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There was found to be no vandalism on my part [33].Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from this talk page archive, Blnguyen was not aware that WP:VAND stated "Knowingly using copyrighted material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies is vandalism." BhaiSaab ^talk 02:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont see any proof of that. You havent cite any diffs, oldid's are useless (OLD, when I was barely one week to wikipedia). There was still found to be no vandalism on my part, and the block was unwarranted, anyway the incident was three months ago, proving that you have little else to do but harp on the same nonsense over and over again. There is no "pattern", what are you trying to prove? What you have proved here is that you are adept at Wikilawyering and selectively quoting.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I find your response to be hilarious, because I'm not the one who brought this up on the arbcom evidence page. Rather, it was you that brought up this three month old incident, and I simply defended myself. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see regarding this matter in the talk page, it was resolved by Blnguyen's assessment and corrected accordingly.Hkelkar 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was using the copyvio as an example of wikilawyering by BhaiSaab. Well I find it hilarious BhaiSaab tried to attack me in this manner, implying I have a "history of plagiarism" when I have never plagiarized.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Where have I implied that? BhaiSaab ^talk 04:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise there is no point to this. Especially because that was an incident for which I was unfairly blocked as a newbie three months ago. I have no history of plagiarism or copyvio. I have never violated copyright either (never copied verbatim from my sources). Sadly the argument falls through the cracks.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to Fred, Baka. He proposed this. Not I. The statement is that you reinserted copyrighted material, not that you plagiarized, and it's quite obviously true. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a copyvio. I'm not sure if the fact that it was an intricate piece of three things stuck together was explained clearly though. I didn't check at the time to see if it was clear to the parties that it was a copyvio, as I only investigated after the incident. I have not investigated whether this was a "deliberate" copyvio -> vandalism action. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bakasuprman is not anti-Muslim/Christian/Buddhist

1) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is neither anti-Islamic nor anti-Christian nor anti-Buddhist

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yup, I'm not (anti- any religion) because the beliefs cant fight each other. I have interacted well with Muslim users who work on the 'pedia (its because of them I was introduced to Gedong Bagus Oka, Agama Hindu Dharma, Kantaji Temple, etc.) and I have also worked on the Christianity section of Indian American. Initially I had some differences with an anon on the I-Am page, but we worked out our differences, and I put in refs for all minority orgs. I haven't edited very many Buddhism pages, but a user accused me of all three biases on the evidence section, and I'm here to rectify that.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think only arbitrators can make proposals here. Correct me if I'm wrong. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Anyone can make proposals here but only arbitrators may edit the /Proposed decision page. --Srikeit 05:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your personal biases are irrelevant. Hornplease 18:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering users accused me of being anti-Buddhist and anti-Christian and anti-Muslim, it is quite relevant. But I also saved the Ashfaqulla Khan article from AfD a few months ago, in a show of communal harmony.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Who accused you of personal biases? I'm afraid that this is now such a thicket of accusation and counter-accusation that I cant find this one. In addition, you do realise that your vote to keep that article was neither the first, nor the last, nor the most persuasive. It was one of many. To quote that - and an article about a nationalist revolutionary - as a 'show of communal harmony' is almost funny. Interfaith Dialogue Thanks You for Saving That Article.

On a separate note, I would like to tell the clerk if he thinks these sections are getting too unwieldy then I offer to move whichever of my statements and replies I think I can to the talkpage. Hornplease 07:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in "your vote to keep that article was neither the first, nor the last, nor the most persuasive". I agree with that. What you dont see is that I was the first "Indian" user to edit the page. The first person I asked to look at the page was TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs) (showing that I was wishing to build a full consensus), I also asked Ragib (talk · contribs) to look at it, as well as a few Hindu editors. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Many of the edits from Bakasuprman are based on Fantasistic ideas.Like this Afd where he along with Subhash Bose aka Netaji tries to salvage an apparently derogatory idea claiming that the black stone of the Muslim Holy place Mecca is a Hindu Shiva Lingam.MerryJ-Ho 10:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I merely stated that before the advent of Mohammed, the Kaaba was a pagan pilgrimmage site, where many different beliefs had their idols there. Since there is evidence for historical trade between Arabia and India, the idea is plausible, though in retrospect, three months later, the "Shivling of Makkeshwar" was probably OR (though not false).Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakasuprman's reactions are religion based -

I meant exactly what I said, that I felt he stabbed me and other Hindu users in the back. Usually I have something better to do (more edits than BhaiSaab, TwoHorned, Hkelkar, and TerryJHo combined), but seeing Hindu users ganged up on by cabals of trolls does get my blood boilingMerryJ-Ho 10:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol I apologized to Aksi for blowing up on his talk page. Nick had no opinion on the matter, and it doesnt prove I have any anti-religion bias. It merely shows my apparent dislike of a block aksi made, and because of Hkelkar's amazing energy in bettering the wikipedia, made pages ripe for POV-pushing. In case you forgot, I also notified you of the Ashfaqulla Khan Afd (in fact you were the first person I talked to about it).Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your logic of notifying me about Ashfaqullah Khan because of his religion still is based on the same premise of religion.If one reads your comments on that article for deletion, one would disagree that you were not taking a lead role in vehemently defending the existence and rationale of that article proving through original research a disturbing notion that all paganism is Hinduism and that Hinduism was prevalent in Pre-Islamic Arabia...also claiming the Muslim holy places to be bastion of Hindu Gods and statues. MerryJ-Ho 09:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You have a very active imagination. And by "one" you mean "POV-pusher intent on whitewashing history". As an unbiased viewer can see, users like you were accusing Keep votes of being "Hindutva bigots". I merely stated time and time again (even under pressure from racist rants from you and other users) that it there most probably was a lingam inside the black stone. Isnt there a verse in the Koran that says "Mohamad smashed the idols"? Since the pagan Arabs had thousands of idols, a shivaling could have been one of them. Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Quad errat demonstrandum- I have doubts on my imagination reading above MerryJ-Ho 16:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

_{:::::It's quod erat demonstrandumHkelkar}

_{[34] - C'est passable. MerryJ-Ho 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)}

Q.E.D. and [35], touche Hkelkar 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As childish as I think it sometimes gets, this may be the worst. I have worked with Bakaman on Buddhism related articles and in one case in particular, he went of of his way to have a vandal checked here . This vandal was seriously messing up two Buddhism related articles. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 16:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Hkelkar has adhered to wikipedia policy in his edits to articles

1) Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adheres to WP:V,WP:CITE,WP:RS and WP:NPOV in his edits. Whenever an error or transgression of these rules on his part were established, he debates it, but relents when the error has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and often makes corrections accordingly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed - Hkelkar 09:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing can be farther from the truth in many cases, although you have adhered to these policies at times. You used your inference of the text of a fatwa (with no documented impact) to state that it was the root cause of various Muslim castes in direct contradiction to three sources I cited. Before I showed any sources, you maintained that Hinduism no influence at all on Muslim castes. This, in addition to the removal of cited information and addition of copyrighted material that I showed here. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Indian caste system and let the ArbComm decide for themselves.Hkelkar 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No. See the evidence page for 'debating' even when frequent errors have been proven beyond unreasonable doubt. Hornplease 18:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Debate, yes. Whenever you established that you were right I eventually relented. Whenever I established you were wrong you rarely relented and continued to revert-war.Hkelkar 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlike any of the editors opposing him, Hkelkar pretty much has one DYK under his belt (Poverty in Pakistan which I created, but he wrote). He has also shown a willingness to use mainstream and reliable sources, as opposed to "crusade again Hindutva/stop the fundamentalists/coalition for hate-fre South Asia/etc.", which fall under partisan sources.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My DYK is here diff. Hkelkar 02:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No. This topic is precisely documented in the Evidence page, and is one aspect related to the core of this ArbCom case. TwoHorned 13:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

TwoHorned your statement is out of place.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admin Makemi has commented that Hkelkar is engaging in original research on Indian caste system. [36] BhaiSaab ^talk 14:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And I have responded and clarified his misconception [37][38].Again, BhaiSaab misrepresents.Hkelkar 14:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well of course you'll be defending yourself; he's still dead-on though. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, you will be defending yourself.Let's get this Makemi guy to respond to my comments first. He does not appear to have read any of the citations.Hkelkar 15:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that Makemi said "It seems to me", i.e it appears to him. Maybe he should dig a bit deeper so that the nature of the "appearence" may be determined.Hkelkar 15:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see this comment.Hkelkar 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. 02:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) NinaEliza 09:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On what basis? Just "an opinion" counts for zip here.Hkelkar 02:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See "Statement By User NinaEliza" on the Evidence page.NinaEliza 09:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - the evidence shows that Hkelkar has participated in disruptive editing on Wikipedia, in contravention of WP:NPOV and WP:POINT (and possibly WP:CIVIL). While I doubt his or her actions are of any great severity, (s)he has, nonetheless, contravened these policies and guidelines. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will point to HKelkar's awards and his immense contributions. Being incivil to those who are no angels themselves and are provocative from the outset can be understood, as can be the fact that if did get more awards then those opposing him then he must be doing something right. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 17:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar's edits show signs of bad faith

1) Hkelkar has made many edits that are indicative of bad faith and shows an intention to deceive users. Note, for example, quotes from several reliable sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Islam and Britannica, that I provided on the talk page which supported my position on November 17th. On November 19th, when user:Aminz began editing the article, Hkelkar stated on Aminz's talk page that I "used no sources at all"[39] or "cited no reliable sources" [40].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See the section immediately below.Hkelkar 02:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Agree (sorta). I agree with the caveat that it is difficult to do so because this statement states not one but two positions, drifts into the use of first person narrative, and goes on to cite a situation I have no involvement in. I only strongly agree to this: Hkelkar has made many edits that are indicative of bad faith—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NinaEliza (talk • contribs) .

Like I said, cite an example. An opinion "sorta" counts for nothing. Hkelkar 03:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What does the "section immediately below" have to do with me using "no sources at all"? BhaiSaab ^talk 03:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read my statement on the RFAR Evidence page.NinaEliza 03:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And my response.Hkelkar 04:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No comment, other than this: Please read Hkelkars response to my evidence.NinaEliza 08:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Hkelkar 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

BhaiSaab's edits show signs of bad faith

1) BhaiSaab has made many edits that are indicative of bad faith and shows an intention to deceive users.Note, for example, quotes from several reliable sources, such as Sajida Sultana Alvi, Advice on the art of governance,an Indo-Islamic Mirror for Princes, and Caste in Indian Muslim Society that explicitly say what I have edited are beng refuted obstinately by BhaiSaab in an attempt to whitewash the article, a common technique by him and his meatpuppets.See Talk:Indian_caste_system#Quotes_provided_by_Hkelkar for my support.Apparently, according to him, I regard "Hindu Unity" as a reliable source (which I never have)[41].A user has supported my assertions in the article [42] and yet, BhaiSaab said that his "comments can't be used as a source"[43], which is a deliberate non-sequitur as I did no such thing. It is his attempt to disparage a comment despite the fact that there is a "Request for Comments" on that article.Hkelkar 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Hkelkar 02:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence and part of the second sentence here seems to be plagiarized from my edit above. And as I have established on the talk page, you are intentionally misrepresenting a source that states "Muslim writers" were not influenced by Hinduism to say that "Muslim castes" were not influenced by Hinduism. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No I have not.I will post the whole page tomorrow to show that the author conveys that Muslim castes were not fully influenced by Hinduism but were derived, in part, from normative Muslim practice.Hkelkar 04:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They dont show "sings of bad faith", as BhaiSaab has stated he's assumed bad faith with you for two months. Ther are "bad faith".Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that your statement makes no sense though, right? You basically said that an editor who assumes bad faith of another user is himself (or herself) editing in bad faith. Hence, everyone who assumes bad faith of vandals, for example, are themselves editing in bad faith. Hilarious. :) BhaiSaab ^talk 04:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hkelkar is a sockpuppet of Shiva's Trident

1) Shiva's Trident is the sockpuppetmaster of Hkelkar, and has thereby evaded his August 21st block and attempted to deceive users from August 22nd to present.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BJAODN - Very explanatory. Especially the N in the acronym.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed MerryJ-Ho 16:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::I formally withdraw this proposal in light of recent evidence I have found. I'd like to downgrade this to meatpuppetry, although it still leaves a few things unexplained. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering the advocates above are requesting a continuance, I will take the time to evaluate this new evidence with some administrators and see what conclusion I can reach. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No opinionNinaEliza 03:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Such accusations should be taken to checkuser before taken to ArbCom. Please file a RfCU if you wish to pursue this avenue before posting here. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - I have had previous discussions with both of them. Throughout the proceedings I maintained that HKelkar is not a sockpuppet of anyone. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar is a not a sockpuppet of Shiva's Trident or anyone

1) Shiva's Trident not the sockpuppetmaster of Hkelkar,or the other way round, as all evidence against him is circumstantial at best.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. -- Hkelkar 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

True statement.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support- i have had interactions with both of them. They're different people. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral This can only be definitively proven by a CheckUser. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 19:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Provocative statements by Hkelkar/Shiva's Trident

3) Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made provocative statements:

• "Thanks the gods for that. We never needed pedophiles anyway"
• "Qutub Minar is basically just one big penis."
• "I'm sure you do. However, wikipedia is not the place for ululating. Get a blog for that"
• [44] "Your view is fodder for Pakistani ISI agents and other liberal socialist India-haters and Indophobes"
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vkvora2001&diff=81624291&oldid=81624152[ "I should start and article about the Self-hating Indian"
• More statements here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have added a couple. I think there is a problem with using language which has an inflammatory effect, whether intended to or not. Fred Bauder 16:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. I did not make the first statement. I apologized for the second in irc to User:Srikeit(besides, I also said "Jama Masjid is a better illustration of Muslim architecture.", and many Muslims in India will agree with this assesment).I do not believe that the third statement is provocative.However, I apologize nonetheless and retract them. Shall I strike them out?Hkelkar 03:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If we could depend on an apology being the end of it, that would be nice. I do think the reference to Qutub Minar is understandable, you mean it is not architecturally distinguished. Fred Bauder 16:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we can debate whether or not it was you on the first edit endlessly. I'll leave that to the arbcom now. I don't find your apologies meaningful, as you typically continue the same pattern of editing shortly thereafter. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I expect an apology for this assumption of bad faith. If I do not receive it within 24 hrs then I will retract my previous apology.Hkelkar 04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can retract it right now. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely the statements dont need to be linked to individually? The evidence page is for that. Please, lets try and keep this as clean as possible. Hornplease 07:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to examine each turd. Fred Bauder 16:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as the statements to vkvora are concerned, they were meant to be humorous i.e. not to be taken seriously (though self-hatred does exist among many Indians, I mean look at me, double the self-loathing for me :-) ).If he misunderstood and felt hurt then he should have told me so and I would have explained it to him.I assumed that he realized that it was a joke and let the matter rest.Hkelkar 13:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this finding. Hkelkar has been warned and blocked many times for his provocative statements. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly agree. If they need to be listed individually, I can add quite a few more from the Indian Buddhist Revival/Movement talk page. Should I do that Fred? NinaEliza 03:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: After consideration of this assertion, I have decided to added 9 of the most inflammatory comments Hkelkar has made on the Indian Buddhist Revival Movement talk page. They are on the RfaR "Evidence" page under the heading "User Hkelkar makes inflammatory statements".

Update:Also, see my response in the same page in my section.Hkelkar 09:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No Comment, other than this: please read Hkelkars response to my evidence.NinaEliza 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some more examples

• A fatwa is a fatwa is a fatwa is a fatwa. What's not to know about a fatwa? It's the thingie that clerics like Osama bin-Laden give out to order his henchmen to blow people up. That's all. Fatwa. Simple
• I'll bet you're just itching to get me blocked, huh? Now that's what I call a true "personal Jihad".
• Anything for the great holy war on an infidel like me, right

MerryJ-Ho

Trolling by TwoHorned

1)TwoHorned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made personal attacks and provocative statements with an intent to solicit emotive responses:

• "Hatred makes you blind, buddy"
• "Bakaman' IQ is on the downside, apparently. :)" here
• Characterizing Users as "Hindutvaadis"[45]
• Calling me (User:Hkelkar) "bozo" thrice in edit summaries one two three
• WP:BLP violation of living person Koenraad Elst [46][47][48][49]
• " ... extremely pathological behavior of Hkelkar" [50]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted if the links check out. Changed title. Fred Bauder 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

proposed -- Hkelkar 05:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mildly agree on two counts. The IQ remark was a personal attack, of a somewhat minor kind. So was 'bozo'. I think an apology should have been asked for, and should have been given with good grace.

That being said, I am not sure why you think being called a follower of Hindutva is a provocative statement. Nobleeagle said an identical thing on the main project page and you didnt object. Hornplease

The Elst page: 1. the first diff is about Daniel Pipes. 2. Diff 2 has been discussed at length when it was first instituted, and formed part of my evidence against you. Thank you for hammering in the fact that you dont read what other people are saying in a discussion. 3. Diff 3 is not a violation of any aspect of BLP. (You mischaracterise sources.) 4. In Dif 4. 'conservative' is replaced with 'extreme right' as a descriptor of a magazine. I do not think that this can be said to violate wp:blpersons.Hornplease 08:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have called these users that way, that's for sure. My apologies. But if you look at the context of these edits, you'll notice it's when Hkelkar was accusing me of antisemitism, a much more serious accusation in my opinion. So, who is playing the "emotive" pattern here ? Regarding Bakasuprman I was however the first to propose an agreement between us and a ceasefire: [51]. TwoHorned 13:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Ceasefire", and interesting way of putting it, showing that User:TwoHorned regards wikipedia as a battlefield in violation of wikipedia policy.Hkelkar 17:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to take into account who was warned for incivility. Anyway, the only barnstar I got on my user page is about this. TwoHorned 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to take into account who got blocked for edit-warring on Koenraad Elst [52].Besides, Durova's comment was not directed at me see.Hkelkar 19:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see this warning to TwoHorned [53], and thisHkelkar 19:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

About some of your warnings and blocks it should be useful to reveal under what specific conditions described in the Evidence section they appeared. And, about Durova's comment, yes, it is not directed at you, but at Bakasuprman who is cited in this paragraph. My apologies went for both of you, believe it or not. TwoHorned 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am quite surprised that TwoHorned persists in vindictive behavior after I agreed to compromise with him. Shows very poorly on him, almost like he has little else to do but quote mine for this RfaR. Hkelkar is right about "ceasefire" point its funny how this user regards things as "fights", "ceasefire", etc.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an ArbCom case. Every event is listed to explain a process yielding to an ArbCom case. Yes, it is true that you and I agreed on a particular instance. This should be taken into account as well. But the case goes much farther that this particular instance. I don't like it too, to redisplay disputes on which we agreed. You also are writing hard sentences against me as this ArbCom case is going on, despite our "local" agreement. And I hope you don't like it too. But, well, we have to display admins under what circumstances we get here now. A case is not an easy thing. TwoHorned 09:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Local? Dude I only interacted with you on Koenraad Elst (and respective talk page). I have never run into you anywhere else (other than this RfaR). I wrote sentences because you attacked me on the evidence page. I dont care about the troubles you have with Hkelkar but I am surprised you would pretend like I brushed you off. Its not a particular instance, its the only instance. If you see, I have no comments on Hkelkar's evidence for anti-Semitism on your part (I dont understand French).Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of anti-semitism is one point, and you are clearly foreign to that, as far as I am concerned. But there is another point, the most important for me in this case. I'm sorry you are a part of it, only in one occasion w.r.t. to my interactions with you on the English wikipedia. I'm obliged to mention it, even after our agreement, because of the very subject of it, which goes beyond our individualities, yours and mine. I'm sorry for that: usually I always find a solution to resolve disputes with the very few Hindus I disagree with. TwoHorned 18:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As a wise man once said "If we could depend on an apology being the end of it, that would be nice." Hkelkar 13:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

More provocative statements by BhaiSaab

1) BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made more provocative statements

• [54] "The true terrorists in this war are the Zionists"
• In this conversation, he implies that that Judaism should have a criticism section because half of the world's Jews live in Israel. Both sides of the argument between him and User:Dev920 are below:

[55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

• Vandalized this very page to hide his virulent and persistent antisemitism [61]

• Here, he attempts to cite this article on wikipedia (Banu Nadir), which contains anti-semitic statements of "Jewish Conspiracies" stated as though they were fact. Hkelkar 07:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

< -- added by Hkelkar 05:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC) -->

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Hkelkar 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't get any more misrepresentative than that. I said Judaism should have a criticism section because Christianity and Islam have one. If the Ottoman Empire is frequently used as a source of "Muslim action" it's perfectly to use "Israel" as a source of "Jewish action." since it does claim to be a "Jewish state" - does it not? My first statement was a response to someone else calling Nasrallah a terrorist. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Israel is not a "Jewish State" in the same sense that Saudi Arabia is a "Islamic State". Israel is a Jewish State only in the sense that it has a Jewish Majority.Israeli government is secular democracy and you know this.This is a common characteristic: deliberately using the term "Jewish State" in the wrong context.You said that since Israel has a Jewish majority then it must represent the actions of Jews, then you plan to characterize actions of Israel with actions of Jews. This implies that Jews act "collectively" or "cabalistically" in some mysterious way, which is an antisemitic characterization. Hkelkar 06:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can make as many assumptions of characterizations as you want. BhaiSaab ^talk 06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not an assumption. Antisemitism has had a long history and the dynamic is obvious. Evidently, I am not alone in reaching this conclusion as User:Dev920 also reached this conclusion.Hkelkar 06:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, so did Shiva's Trident. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see how these edits are disruptive to other users, but since Hkelkar wants some sort of anti-Semitic indictment against me, I guess I'll respond. On Banu Nadir, I specifically said "the first part" of the page, and that's all I had read up to. Obviously Hkelkar would lead you to believe that I wanted to cite later parts in the page which does mention "Jewish conspiracies" but I was not aware of that at the time. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the article itself is anti-semitic and citing it on wikipeida without qualification would promulgate antisemitism.Hkelkar 07:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it was never cited at all so what's your point? As I said I wanted to find a middle ground, not a one sided story. BhaiSaab ^talk 08:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But you wanted to, that's part of a pattern.Hkelkar 17:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I said I wanted to find a middle ground. There's a difference. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hkelkar

1) Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) self identifies as being an Indian Jew, having a Hindu father and a Jewish mother [62] [63] [64]. See also Shiva's Trident's user page

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Why is it necessary to focus on my religious beliefs?This matter should be completely irrelevant to wikipedia. Only TerryJ-Ho keeps attacking me for my religion. What does Trident's user page have to do with anything?Lots of Hindus support Israel.

Check User:Nidhishsinghal for instance, or these quotes by Hindus against antisemitism and for Israel [65]. What about User:Freedom skies? Check his userpage also.Hkelkar 17:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Really, the focus on his religion is useless and irrelevant. Assume good faith. We're working on building the encyclopedia not harping on the religion of a random student in a Texas College.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar is correct, the majority movement among Hindus (called Hindutva which literally means "Being Hindu") is supportive of Israel for reasons of ideology.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Majority-schmajority, Baka, and you know that. It just seems like one on WP sometimes. Hornplease 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

More generally: why is this relevant? I cant see why we need to concentrate on everyone's self-identification. Hornplease 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 ::Ok, sorry, I was being slow. I see now where Fred Bauder is going with this. Hornplease 12:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Hornplease were you saying something?Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is that link supposed to mean? Hornplease 03:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There are a few instances of this on the Indian Buddhist Revival talk page.NinaEliza 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see this article for an indication of the motives of the users campaigning against me here.Hkelkar 11:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Support It is unnecessary to establish his beliefs in the light of the POV edit accusations. Hkelkar, defaming the other users here is not a good way to win support or a favorable decision from ArbCom. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism by TerryJ-Ho

1) TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has skeptically focused on Hkelkar's self-identification [66] [67] [68] [69], See comment by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [70].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Thank you. Who the heck really cares what religion an editor is? Its extremely disruptive to accuse someone of lying about their religion, on a talk page someone accused me of lying about my ethnicity. What does it add to the 'pedia?Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally have never mentioned my religion as I think it is irrelevant while HKelkar has emphatically claimed many times that he is Jewish MerryJ-Ho 13:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Only when you attacked me for it when I mentioned it to another user ONCE. Then all hell broke loose. Hkelkar 13:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Above,How can one attack HKelkar's religion unless he has mentioned one.MerryJ-Ho

My mentioning it to somebody else is not the point. The point is that you are obsessed with it.Hkelkar 10:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab has also engaged in the same, as he has defended his Ahmadinejad comment somewhat, based on his assertion that Hkelkar is/was bluffing about his Jewish status. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

His assertion is largely based on my Indian last name. See here (though I'm not Bene Israel, but the argument is valid nonetheless)t. Also, may I point out that Jews such as Ben Kingsley (a.k.a. Krishna Bhanji), Ezekiel Malekar and Nissim Ezekiel also have Indian last and/or first names.Hkelkar 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if "Kelkar" is a Jewish name or not. My assertion is solely based on sockpuppetry. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I second the above comment - there would not have been any need to ask questions to Kelkar about him building a Jewish identity and religion had there not been a suspicion on him being a sockpupeteer.MerryJ-Ho 09:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this finding. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Support Hkelkar 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sockpuppets

1) There is substantial evidence that Subhash bose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Shiva's Trident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same user, see User:Shiva's Trident and note by Dmcdevit. Others include Pusyamitra Sunga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose (2nd), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Subhash bose (3rd), Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Subhash bose, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. Here Shiva's Trident signs a provocative post as [[User:Subhash bose|Netaji]] [71].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

First off, I do not believe that User:Shiva's Trident and User:Subhash bose are socks. See User_talk:Subhash_bose#Inappropriate_username Hkelkar 17:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, As ai have shown in the rFCU and evidence page, all the "evidence" is circumstantial.Hkelkar 17:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, as I have argued above, there is a reasonable precept of statute that makes this issue moot. What does the ArbComm think about this.Hkelkar 17:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It only makes it "moot" on a specific page. And yes, Fred, Subhash bose was simply the old username of Shiva's Trident. While using "Subhash bose" he signed with "Netaji." BhaiSaab ^talk 18:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

He has signed "Netaji" for a long time. It is one of the nicknames of the real Subhash Bose.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If the arbitrators would like information about User:Pusyamitra Sunga and why he is a sock, feel free to contact me. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this finding. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

False accusations of antisemitism made by Hkelkar

1) Hkelkar has made false accusations of antisemitism as described in the evidence here. He persists in making that baseless accusation for instance here, or here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed TwoHorned 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Oppose - They have merit, and they are dangerous given BhaiSaab's other actions toward Hkelkar if seen in the whole context.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose.The accusations are neither false nor baseless.Hkelkar 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't find that accusation false or baseless. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - such accusations are made with little merit, and are disruptive. In the Wikipedia environment such accusations should not be made. See WP:POINT, WP:WQ, WP:STALK. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - The one thing that stood out during this whole episode was that antisemitism was practiced. This cannot be denied. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That does not mean these accusations are true. TwoHorned 09:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In this case it was. Hkelkar 09:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

BLP violation by TwoHorned

1)TwoHorned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated BLP as described in the evidence here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Bondego 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is not the evidence page. Statements should be succinct with a few examples. You may want to move some of this. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagree. Hornplease 03:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And why?--Bondego 11:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree . Using a geocities blog for criticism is definitely a vio of WP:BLP . Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The referred link is that of R. Zydenbos, a well-known academic, as can be seen from his academic homepage. That the first page is being hosted by a specific host provider (Angelfire) does not alter its content. Another academic, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, from UCLA, has written the same about Elst relation with the Vlaams Blok, a far-right Belgium party now banned in Belgium for xenophobia and racism. As per AlexOriens, I said myself that my first login in Wikipedia was under the name AlexOriens, that I don't use it anymore, and that all my interactions with the users of this case have ben done with the TwoHorned login. I've never used two ids to evade anything. The only intersections between the two logins went on march 26, 27 2006, far before I went into discussion with Hkelkar or others. The ArbCom will decide by themselves if I've done something wrong here. TwoHorned 07:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if it was by Zydenbos (who is by the way not a well known academic), but that an unpublished source (a personal homepage on Angelfire) is not valid for the strict WP:BLP criteria. This has been pointed out to TwoHorned a thousand times, yet he refuses to realize this. And the result is that the BLP violation problems cannot be addressed. The Sanjay Subrahmanyam article is an editoral in a newspaper. It was not added by TwoHorned to the article, and a newspaper editoral is not a proof (but a slightly better source than the ones used by TwoHorned). --Bondego 11:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Support Hkelkar 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost no party of this RfAr is neutral

1) Other than the Arbitrators, almost no party here is neutral. Users like TerryJ-Ho use wikipedia as a battleground and keep throwing around accusations against users who disagree with him.Users like BhaiSaab keep whitewashing edits (with a long history of doing so), and make antisemitic comments, users like TwoHorned also express antisemitic views and attack users with whom he disagrees, user hornplease is a very biased editor, but is careful not to appear as a pov pusher, he goes at great lenghts to denigrate writers sympathetic to Hindu causes like Elst. He sometimes deletes text without reason, or inserts falsehoods. But he's nevertheless careful not to cross the line and appear as a pov pusher (which he obviously is).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Removed inappropriate language. Fred Bauder 15:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

proposed -- Hkelkar 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And what of yourself? BhaiSaab ^talk 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If we're going to make statements about universal bias, why exclude the arbitators? WP:NPOV itself says that "All editors and all sources have biases." NPOV differentiates bias, which it states is universal, from NPOV edits. The policy states that NPOV implies a balanced presentation of facts and facts about opinions; and that "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." By that yardstick, many of the parties on this page are regular violators of NPOV, and some few are not. In my opinion. Hornplease 05:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Further remark: since the above statement seems to be directed at me, I urge HKelkar to substantiate his accusations that I "denigrate writers", delete text without reasons and 'insert falsehoods'. Hornplease

Will be done shortly in evidence page.Hkelkar 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Already in evidence section. Hornplease, you have scarcely concealed your hatred for me (though you wrap it eloquently).Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a lack of neutrality. Even whatever evidence you attempt to present on that page seems to focus on alleging incivility and vandalism. It would help if you could state what I am allegedly biased in favor of.

Baka, stating that you're a disruptive editor on WP is not the same as expressing hatred. Hornplease 05:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the other editor's except HKelkar and Bakasuprman try to follow the rules.MerryJ-Ho 10:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, that is.Hkelkar 10:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And blatantly untrue.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Having the last comments doesn't mean you have proved them to be untrue.MerryJ-Ho 14:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, coming from someone who enjoys calling Hindu users fascists and Paid agents of the RSS, were you saying something about "neutrality"?Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in this finding of fact. It is a sweeping statement and cannot be proved. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it can be proved based on patterns of editing of each user.Hkelkar 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:TerryJ-Ho misrepresents sources to promulgate an anti-Hindu bias

1) For example. He cited a ref stating that this represents a universal academic consensus [72]. I cited another academic refs showing that this is not the case [73]. There are many such cases.Hkelkar 10:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think he misrepresents the source as a consensus. He provided a summary of a particular lecture. An example of one viewpoint. Fred Bauder 13:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ Fred. He said, in this diff [74] "This is how academia sees RSS and its activities". This means "all the academia". My diff proves him blatantly wrong and shows his intellectual dishonesty and selective referencing[75]Hkelkar 13:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

He asserts a point and you refute it. That is what is expected on a talk page. Both viewpoints could potentially be included in the article. Fred Bauder 14:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But his statement is a lie (that the academia is anti-RSS, the academia is clearly divided). Like I said, he is a very smart man and clearly I have no special ability that he has.Why couldn't he have done the same research that I did to arrive at my reference? Clearly, he is promulgating a specific ideology.He is a hypocrite to call ME biased when he himself is biased.Plus, I am proposing a "finding of fact" here so ArbComm should check his contribs and the contribs of his past User:Lkadvani and they will find similar biases (I will post more evidence shortly).In fact both refs have been included in the article BY ME, so I am not biased, but he clearly is.Hkelkar 14:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

proposed -- Hkelkar 10:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: One of the view-points, but has it been sourced reliably or has it been created out of thin air? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would you say that? A simple google search of the title indicates it's genuine. Hornplease 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why wasn't it cited there and then? No link to any site is provided in the diff. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it wasnt cited. Since it clearly exists, I think it is a little unnecessary to assume anything other than a minor error. Hornplease 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor error? I hope you understand that Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research are important policies of the encyclopedia. Take up this discussion some place else. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And that WP:Civil is highly recommended. Also, that wasnt a reply. Still puzzled that you would accuse someone of creating something that is the first result of a google search for its name. Hornplease 12:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others

Biased editing by Hkelkar

1) Hkelkar has engaged in aggressive biased editing "rv rubbish edits and BLP violation. Terry if you persist then I will report you for BLP"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The edit was a BLP violation. We have to be careful when dealing with living people and use multiple sources and all that.Hkelkar 16:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There were sources for the controversial information. Sources which you removed when you made your edit. Notice the link to the US Department of State explicitly stating why he visa was denied. Fred Bauder 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The question I have though, did you deliberately remove the references or were you just doing knee-jerk thing. If you are deliberately removing references you are doing a very bad thing. If you are just being hasty, you might slow down, read, and check references before you revert. Fred Bauder 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It was based on the fact that he needed multiple refs (note that the edit stands right now, so I did not persistently revert it out).Hkelkar 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good that you did not edit war. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires "high quality references" but says nothing about multiple references. In this case a Guardian article would be good enough. I think you got the multiple references from standards for journalism, original research situations require multiple sources, repeated tests, etc. If the Guardian prints a major story it is already based on multiple sources. Fred Bauder 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, extremely biased editing. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be a pot calling a kettle black.Hkelkar 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As I have been active on the Narendra Modi page, I can say that User:TerryJ-Ho's references were very valid, but if you look carefully, the same comments have been made out to look POV by not mentioning that the views are of the author and the author alone. The Guardian has mentioned the names of the author and it is more like an editorial not presentation of facts. Just my $0.02. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I too was active on that page, and I think that you might be incorrect there. The source has been quoted to buttress a claim that Mr. Modi is 'blamed' for the deaths of Muslims in Gujarat by 'the Muslim community' and 'international organisations.' The article reports on the protests by some Muslims in Britain and also a statement by the Foreign Office that they had a 'report' that the Gujarat government 'did not do enough in the riots'. While I certainly think that more moderation should have been employed in the wording of the sentence of the article, to say that the article should mention it as the author's opinion rather than a strict report of events is false. Hornplease 18:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite his popularity with the wider Gujarati electorate, he remains a controversial figure and the Muslim community and international organisations blame him for the genocide of more than 2000 Muslims – if you would care to look at the link, the site has provided many viewpoints, only one of which was produced the by the editor here, and in a very biased way. Hkelkar should not have discounted it in any way but should have edited it so that it reflected what the website really said. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing to reflect the other viewpoints in the article was not necessary. The article was used as a source for the FO's views. Any editing merely needed to ensure it accurately quoted the FO's views. Hornplease 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy; and take this discussion somewhere else. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Very well, [76]. Hornplease 12:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this finding. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree.In most cases the articles were overwhelmingly biased and I was trying to balance them out. Hkelkar 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

HKelkar - You have the habit of classifying views contrary to your POV as leftist or Anti-Hindu..I would like you to finish this for once and all by explaining what are the different POV's available in the entire spectrum of sources in India and world and of these what are acceptable to you.You may give examples of these publications too.MerryJ-Ho 11:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is that you have been misrepresenting sources without qualifying their biases (or even alleged biases). See my recent edits, all of which are scholarly when cited as tertiary and attributed when cited as primary. You have not been doing that. For instance, in 2002 Gujarat violence, you represented the claim of it being a "genocide" as a fact and cited the Guardian as tertiary without doing research into allegations of bias against it on this issue, which I did. The same with Human Rights Watch and others, which I have edited neutrally and properly. Your edits are egregiously one-sided and overwhelmingly disparaging to Hindus, making you a biased editor. I have been trying to balance the scales away from your biases. Wherever you or your buddies didn't edit an article, I have always been neutral and represented all relevant points of view, like my edit to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, where I put in both your view and a countering view, making the article neutral.You consistently refrained from doing that, which demonstrates bias on your part.Hkelkar 11:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And your's is that you have been removing the sourced items- If it is proved that you are Subhash Bose's puppetmaster See thisMerryJ-Ho 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Trolling by Hkelkar

1) Hkelkar made this edit to User talk:SlimVirgin:

:Finally, I find TerryJ-Ho's accusations of "Hindu Chauvinists" rather rich. I'm sure if YOU did another Google search, you will see a vast plethora of Muslim sites saying "Hindus are dung eaters","Hindus are subhuman kaffirs","To kill a Hindu is not a crime, but the true path to Allah","Kill all Hindus, it's cheaper than getting them out of Pakistan",(this one's famous for having been said during the Noakhali Genocide) "We shall take Pakistan by killing all Hindus", and many more.Hkelkar 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A Google search for any of the quoted language produces exactly one hit, User talk:SlimVirgin.

More: (Human Rights Watch, a "terrorist organization" who should be "hanged from lampposts").

Comment by Arbitrators:

What on Earth were you thinking? Making up phony hate speech! Proposed. Fred Bauder 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be hate speech on the web, if not exactly what was pointed to. Fred Bauder 15:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comments by others

Its obviously in other languages lol. SIMI, Lashkar-e-Toiba, etc. dont use English as an official language. They use Hindi/Persian and sometimes use Arabic. Its quite obvious you didnt find it in english. In fact Fred why not look at [77] and from Columbia University [78]. Here's some stuff from Pakistan as well.

Here's some more [79] [80] [81]Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's more dung-worshippers -- Hkelkar 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's more Idiot Hindus happy that cows are dying Hindu "gods" rape women [82].--Hkelkar 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see this(Pakistan Defense Forum) --Hkelkar 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Some tidbits from http://www.kashmir-information.com/Miscellaneous/Slogans.html, during the Noakhali Massacre of 1946 (around 6000 Hindus butchered, 60-75000 Hindus ethnically cleansed from the region): We will take Pakistan by killing [Hindus], Glory to the Muslim league --Hkelkar

Phony Hate-Speech????Yeah, right! Hkelkar 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Want more? Here's more: [83]Hkelkar 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This one hits a little too close to home for me even. Taliban and Yellow badges for Hindus (sumptuary law): [84] [85] [86]--Hkelkar 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever,what does HKelkar mean by adding this hate speech in that edit - it does not clarify anything..I did not say anything similar to that myself..this is plain trolling MerryJ-Ho 12:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It demonstrates that I was telling the truth about hate-speech from Muslims.Hkelkar 12:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• "you will see a vast plethora of Muslim sites saying" - which one of the above is a verifiable Muslim site?MerryJ-Ho 12:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• and do you think the presence of hate speech on any site validates your calling me a "Pakistani" and implying that I am a traitor? MerryJ-Ho 12:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Which one of them are verifiably Muslim sites?Like this:http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/hinduism/hinduism_unveiled.html by "Abdul Wahid"? Who do you think he is, an Inuit?

Geocities: a verifiable Muslim site??? MerryJ-Ho

I agree with this finding. He has continued trolling even on this page and has been warned by Sir Nicholas just yesterday. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolling and provocative edits by TerryJ-Ho

1) TerryJ-Ho under the heading, "Culture of Hate" at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Culture_of_Hate posted a comparison of HKelkar to remarks made on a Hindutva website: "All muslims should go back to Pakistan and Bangladesh where I am sure they will be welcomed.". More: "Lies lies spread by Hindutvaadis" irrelevant commentary in the talk page of an unrelated article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is in response to HKelkar labelling me as Pakistani and implying that I am a traitor.This is a common refrain from Hindutvavadis in India to label the other minorities as traitors if they don't agree with their historical revisionism and notions of nationalism.MerryJ-Ho 11:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really?[87]bottom articleDaily Poineer Hkelkar 11:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this "common refrain from Hindutvaadis" is not entirely without merit.In any case, I'm fairly certain that Terry's Pakistani. Nothing wrong with that, unless he feels guilty or exposed :) .LOoks like Islamofascists commonly label all Hindu and Hindu-sympathizers as "Hindutvaadis" whenever their distortions, atrocities. terrorism and mass murders are exposed.Hkelkar 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We believe that you are jew because you say that ...and I am not Indian because even though I say that emphatically???...What evidence of "distortions, atrocities. terrorism and mass murders" can you show against me? Supporters of Hindutva are known as Hindutvavadis - so what's wrong in calling one so?MerryJ-Ho 12:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your drumhead trial attitude and accusatory tone against Hindus is the problem here.Hkelkar 13:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you say that you are Indian then I can't stop you.However, you can't make me think that you are when it is clear to me that you are not.Hkelkar 13:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All minorities? I dont recall Hindu's ever having problems with Donyi-Polo, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists (Dalai Lama kind, not the political Buddhists), Jews, Sufis, St. Thomas Christians, and the like.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The public face of Hindu nationalismIntolerance Towards MinoritiesBlackwell journal of Theology.............—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerryJ-Ho (talk • contribs) .

Dude you cited a bunch of blogs lol. Maybe I should start a blog as well and call it "Tolerance in India Secular Forum", so it can be cited on wiki or "American Theological Secular Committee" so it can be feigned as academic. There must be a reason why Narendra Modi got elected by a landslide (besides amazing economic growth in Gujarat). Why dont you stop hinting what you think and just say "Hindus are communal"? Hindu-tva=Hindutattva=="Being Hindu" . So being Hindu (in your opinion) is coming from a culture of hate. I wonder what the Parsis and Jews have to say about that....Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And finally, regarding your "paper" above, it should be made aware that several instances of academic bias against Hindus and Jews have been unearthed in the academia in the west by academics working in collaboration with advocacy groups like HAF and AJC Hkelkar 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

I agree with this finding. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. He has continued trolling even on this page and has been warned by Sir Nicholas just yesterday. Hkelkar 19:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In the light of the above comments by HKelkar - I would like Sir Nick to explain why that particular notice was pasted on my page when there was no proper explanation.Is it based on political correctness to match every action against Hkelkar with actions against TerryJ-Ho and Bhaisaab.MerryJ-Ho 11:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

_{:::Note that [(Human Rights Watch, a "terrorist organization" who should be "hanged from lampposts") are HKelkar's comments MerryJ-Ho 15:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC).}

Yes, they are. Fred Bauder 15:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others

Contempt of Admins shown by Ikonoblast

1) Ikonoblast is consistently incivil towards administrators, disagreeing with them on the basis of their technical position. [88], [89], [90], [91]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Support Hkelkar 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others

Reworded. Revert if you don't like. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab retired

1) BhaiSaab has retired from editing Wikipedia, saying he "will not be returning". He has had his userpage deleted and added the simple goodbye message ({{retirement}}) to his user talk page.[92]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comments by others

Proposed. See RfAr/Konstable for a similar proposal. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Untrue - He's back lol. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not want a user to be indefinitely blocked over what may been an misunderstood situation. Goodbye. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will do the same soon. I have a few things to finish in the french pages, and I will wait this case to finish as some admins may ask me some info related to my evidence. Then I will go. I don't believe in the project anymore because of this, for the most part: some regions in Wikipedia are too unprotected. I have a regret for BhaiSaab ^talk. He had the courage to carry this case up to here, to put openly in light what's going on, and he made very good contributions. "Volveràs a tener miedo a la oscuridad". TwoHorned 18:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my mind and will be staying until at least the end of this arbitration, which I see has been unnecessarily prolonged. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking by BhaiSaab

1) BhaiSaab has engaged in wikistalking .See User_talk:Hkelkar#.3B and User_talk:Fred_Bauder#HArrassment_by_BhaiSaab and BhaiSaab's own admission's here.Bakaman _Bakatalk

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Support Hkelkar 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This event has been blown out of proportion by everyone involved. According to BhaiSaab's own statement, he tried calling up Hkelkar once and it was picked up by his professor. This is not an attempt to call up his superiors. Hkelkar then told BhaiSaab on his talk page to stop contacting him off-wiki which he did. Wikistalking is an attempt to stalk a person on wiki AFAIK. Hkelkar should never have been blocked for that statement. He should have been given a warning and similarly BhaiSaab should be banned from trying to contact Hkelkar. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

the problem here is that he called the lab even after I told him not to contatc me of wikipedia, which is harrassment. Hkelkar 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That is why I support a ban on BhaiSaab from making an attempt to contact you in any way from now onwards. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others

Support - I do not see this as a contention here - the user has admitted it themselves. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakasuprman has edited constructively

1)Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) has changed his editing patterns and has contributed with a large variety of users constructively. Instead of edit-warring with the users in this RFA, he has decided to find other avenues for his edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. (users may list below which articles they are most happy of our collaborations on).Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We have worked constructively in editing Poverty in Pakistan, where he started the article [93][94](BhaiSaab, tried to get it deleted[95], naturally), and I expanded it[96] to almost what it is today. Baka and I got it to DYK. Hkelkar 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others

Note that several statements in favour of the hypothesis "X has edited constructively" does not rule out the additional hypothesis "X is a disruptive editor overall." Hornplease 11:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. See how many of my actual edits have come from pages that BhaiSaab, Hkelkar, you,and TerryJHo edit. Not many. Most of my edits come from Assessment, Bengal renaissance topics and Manipuri history.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Logically they dont, and (a) I have no way of judging the total number of your edits to non-contentious pages and (b) the degree to which a random edit by you is likely to help or hinder WP depends upon a finding about your overall tendentiousness, not just your ability - which again I have never denied - to edit constructively. Tendentiousness can be determined by examining your behaviour qualitatively, not, as you seem to think, quantitatively. Hornplease 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Logically they do, tendentious takes away from the pedia, constructive adds to the pedia. Since you obviously have the time to write lies and insult me, you definitely have a way of doing this. Qualitatively I can examine your behavior and note that you obviously came back on wiki to spite me. Quantitatively I can see that you have little to show for two years of time on wikipedia. Unlike you, qualitatively, I have added reliable sources to controversial articles I edited, and quantitatively, you obviously know who is the better contributor.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, this section isnt about me, so the "little to show" doesnt need a response. I note that nevertheless, I am the one who is accused of insulting you.

ABout constructive/tendentiouys, again you miss the point. 'Constructive' means, in this context "has added new articles and worked hard at some others". "Tendentious" means, overall, tends to behave in a particular manner that is summed up here as "editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors"; a violation of WP:RS and WP:V in pursuit of that point of view; and a rejection of community input as it bears on that view. You can simultaneously edit articles that do not relate to your tendentiousness constructively, yet be a net disruptive editor.

You have had serious trouble with WP:RS; as has been spelled out in my evidence, you have a tendency to mis-cite. Hornplease 22:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeating false allegations over and over again do not make them true. Your evidence is faulty and peppered with misrepresented things, and aan amazingly poor understanding of WP:DE.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not repeating any allegations above, merely directing people to the evidence section. How is my understanding of WP:DE flawed? Hornplease 04:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again defining edits retroactively under policies nonexistent at the time of edits, is your own original research. That's why your understanding is flawed and because of the fact your evidence section is little more than an embellished package of mischaracterizations and attempted emotional blackmail of ArbCom. Repeating things that arent true over and over again does not make them true. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see my remarks on WP:DE above; wherein I explain in greater detail that WP:DE, it appears, does not 'define edits' but helps one identify a disruptive editor, just as other policies help us define original research or non-neutral articles. I note that Bakasuprman now appears to accept that WP:DE, if applied, would imply certain unpleasant things about his pattern of editing. Hornplease 06:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your remarks on DE are synonymous to your POV on DE, which means they are not the definition, and therefore its like viewing it through a distorting lens. My edits made before DE cannot be defined by the policy retroactively (thats like you painting a picture to suit your view of them). Consensus seems to agree the "net result" (or whatever its called) is positive, and that your view of my edits is like through a pair of sunglasses. What looks dark through a pair of sunglasses is not dark in the real world.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it the case that any remarks on policy are "synonymous to points of view on" that policy? In which case policy could never be applied. --> Only mine could be; no evidence for this is provided. About the sunglasses, heavens knows what he's on about. Hornplease 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy cannot be applied from your standpoint. What is clear is that you act under the pretense of "policy" and proceed to wikilawyer and harass users. Saying "no evidence" doesnt mean there isnt any. It just means you cant find it. Perhaps the analogy was a little too complex, though you still are are trying to view my edits through a tinted lens.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. He helped mediate in an argument on batuo . Find a ciation on Batuo, an act for which all involved parties thanked him . Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 16:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease engages in POV-Pushing

1) Vandalism in Brinda Karat and generally anything negative of the "secular" parties in India

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. He's been doing this for months. Even here in ArbComm he has misrepresented evidence and made redundant comments all over the evidence page to push his POV into prominence. Hkelkar 01:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. He likes to issue deadlines as well, during which if the editors are not present he'll remove the sources and replace it with "references needed." Refer to Talk:Indian nationalism Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is not fair. Hornplease has not been blocked for any kind of disruption before. This proves one thing – he is willing to listen. Hence I disapprove. Calling his edits vandalism and POV-pushing is ridiculous. I suggest that you withdraw this proposal. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody said that his edits were vandalism, just POV pushing.One can never get blocked and still be a POV-pusher. Hkelkar 12:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has POV-biases. The point is how the user interacts with others and conforms with policies and guidelines is what makes a good editor. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others

Template

1) (proposed finding of fact)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comments by others

Template

1) (proposed finding of fact)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comments by others

Template

1) (proposed finding of fact)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comments by others

Template

1) (proposed finding of fact)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comments by others

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

BhaiSaab

1) BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The fact that I assumed bad faith of a sockpuppet before the admins cared to ban one of his accounts does not necessarily warrant any punishment. WP:AGF stated that we don't have to assume good faith when there was clear evidence of otherwise. The evidence was clear enough for me, but not the admins. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That shows his precept of taking wikipedia into his own hands, in on itself a disruptive venture.Hkelkar 18:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So that's a disruptive venture, but sockpuppetry is quite ok with you. Alright. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. Anti-Semitic prejudices seem ok with you as well.Hkelkar 18:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Support this remedy. --Srikeit 10:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should I get the same punishment as a sockpuppeteer who denies he is a sockpuppeteer? BhaiSaab ^talk 15:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, regardless of who is worse, it evens out only because the maximum is proposed for both. Dmcdevit·t 10:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support both these measures. The amount of repeated edit warring and blocks is amazing. Both continue unabated throughout this case. There is no reason to believe anything else will solve the problem. Dmcdevit·t 10:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is, because before I ran into this sockpuppeteer I only had one block. It got worse after he came back with the Hkelkar account, and then it was quite easy to assume bad faith of his edits because it was obvious. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A lie. He has mad many blocks prior to my first edit late in August (or even Trident's first edit for that matter).As well as several blocks related to articles that I am not involved in (like Craig Winn), see his block logHkelkar 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm obviously assuming you and Bose are the same person - I've had a total of three blocks completely unrelated to both of your accounts. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And I have had no persistent blocks that aren't related to you or your meatpuppets.Hkelkar 14:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, like your blocks for the Muhammad bin Qasim article, which I've barely touched, calling other users jihadists, and making an attack on Terry? I don't think I even need to go into all the blocks you garnered on the Subhash bose account that were completely unrelated to me. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I said you or your meatpuppets.Hkelkar 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any. Not all of us have to stoop to sockpuppeteer-like standards. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have detailed on the evidence page, all of the issues were instigated by you.Hkelkar 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for stepping on your previous account's Fundy Watch parade. You've detailed no such thing. BhaiSaab ^talk 14:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this remedy. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. Hkelkar 02:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No opinion.NinaEliza 03:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar and socks

2) Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing under any name or anonymous ip is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support this remedy. --Srikeit 10:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I also support this per my comments in the preceding proposal. Dmcdevit·t 10:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this remedy. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly Agree. Revert parole does not adequately address the disruption that can ensue on an article talk page, or even a user's talk page. Furthermore, the penalty of Revert parole does not address user Hkelkar's interpretation of vandalism.NinaEliza 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of the sockpuppetry allegations, I feel the "and socks" bit should be dropped from the header. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I never instigated any edit wars. It would seem that an anti-semite like BhaiSaab repeatedly pushing such POV (see the diffs of his edit-war on Antisemitism below, plus his block log and evidence page, of course) on wikipedia needs a stiffer punishment.Hkelkar 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We usually limit bans to one year. Fred Bauder 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that Hkelkar be banned from the articles on which he has been revert-warring. I will not support a one-year ban because Hkelkar has made many good-faith contributions to the encyclopedia and this move would be undermining them all. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - No point banning good faith contributors.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Hkelkar 02:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest he be banned from editing any contentious article. There are many routine tasks that his skills would be useful on if he is willing to help. The encyclopedia desperately needs people who know South Asia well. Any socks should be blanket banned however and editors should be allowed to report suspicions of socks without being accused of violating AGF. Itsmejudith 23:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite my cooperating with her in almost all the articles where we have crossed paths, itsmejudith seems determined to get me banned from articles that she wants to edit exclusively. I happen to know South Asia quite well (being South Asian myself) and, again, my edits are well-researched and well-sourced. I have always expressed a desire to work with itsmejudith constructively and she has refused to respond.Hkelkar 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab is placed on revert parole

1) BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is only allowed one revert per day on wikipedia except to revert obvious vandalism for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Hkelkar 17:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this proposal. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hkelkar is placed on revert parole

1)Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is only allowed one revert per day on wikipedia except to revert obvious vandalism for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Hkelkar 17:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this proposal. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose because Vandalism is a vague term.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bakasuprman, WP:VAND clearly states what is and isn't vandalism. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a difference between contentious edits and overt vandalism. Perhaps a reviewing of WP:VAN would help. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Vandalism is extremely vaugue. In many cases vandalism is incessent ,unexplained and continuos reverts. This is not practical at all. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism is clearly defined. If anything is questionable as whether it is vandalism or not, it wouldn't be obvious. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar

2) Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing under any name or anonymous ip is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. BhaiSaab ^talk 08:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab entered this little template after revert-warring on Antisemitism [97][98][99][100], [101] (pretty much the same stunt he tried to pull of in the Indian caste system article), getting caught [102], making personal attacks at me in the edit summaries [103][104][105][106] and a sysop saying that he needs to be blocked[107].Hkelkar 09:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I guess using sources like the Encyclopedia of Islam is now considered a stunt. BhaiSaab ^talk 09:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems that admins disagree with you regarding this :) Hkelkar 09:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The user you cited as being an admin does not state that he is an admin on his userpage. Misrepresentation perhaps or did you mean to link to one Humus Sapien's diffs? BhaiSaab ^talk 09:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way an admin did comment on Indian caste system that I'm using reliable sources to make reasonable statements[108], which, according to Hkelkar now should be called a stunt. BhaiSaab ^talk 09:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The admin did not respond to my comments after that [109]. Chalk this one up to BhaiSaab's many misrepresentations.Hkelkar 09:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What does your comment about your source have to do with his comment about my edit? BhaiSaab ^talk 09:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose - Hkelkar made valuable contribs to the encyclopedia (see Poverty in Pakistan, India-Israel relations) and after this arbcom will probably learn his lessons and wont deal with large groups of POV pushers alone. His energy can be fueled into many good things, as his DYK (which BhaiSaab tried to sideline and get speedy deleted) shows.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a db when the article said just said "Poverty in Pakistan is a major economic issue" [110], and later removed it myself [111] after you added content. I then told Hkelkar that he did a good job on the article after it was a DYK, so I'm not sure where you get this fairy tale from. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I also edited J.F.R. Jacob extensively, created and edited articles on Ezekiel Isaac Malekar, Solomon Sopher, wrote Anti-Semitism#Pakistan from scratch. I also created Kaluchak_Massacre, expanded Persecution of Hindus, Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_Christians_in_Pakistan, anti-Hindu and others.Hkelkar 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some of your edits are indisputably in good faith. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! BhaiSaab says something nice for a change (grammatically incorrect though it may be).Pinch me, for I must be in wonderland. 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Corrected...I am not here in an attempt to cover up the obvious. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree.Hkelkar 10:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The quality of HKelkar's contributions is undeniable. I have awarded a barnstar to him and I stand by my convictions that on articles related to the Indian subcontinent, his contributions have been excellent. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Even with the degree of accusations against Hkelkar, this remedy is simply too strong. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Support, per my evidence.NinaEliza 04:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:TerryJ-Ho

1) TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a year for personal attacks, disruptive comments, edit-warring and incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Hkelkar 12:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Accepted --Srikeit 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reject -- MerryJ-Ho 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this remedy. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

::Support.Hkelkar 02:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) redundant (sorry)

Above - propose and support..Two votes???

It's not a vote. This whole page is a mechanism for the arbitratrors to get feedback on the case; they have the only votes that count. Thatcher131 14:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. Bad faith attempts by him to ban me on this page and racism make me say so.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose-TerryJ-Ho's block log is tiny (only once for 1hour) and incomparable to other users, so his disruptiveness should not be a factor. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 02:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Probation after ban

1) I will propose indefinite probation after the one year bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Accept. Will definitely be required. --Srikeit 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Accept. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this remedy. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Excellent Idea. Not that I matter much in this, but I would feel better editing here. NinaEliza 03:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

1) BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year from editing articles related to religion and Israel.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Should extend to all articles falling in the purview of "Religion and Society" Hkelkar 02:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. I stopped coming to Wikipedia for a while because him. He constantly disrupted articles on Hinduism.--D-Boy 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Coming from the same person who called other users Bible thumpers and jihadist users, if I remember correctly, that's pretty funny. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose--The term "religion" can be rather ambiguous in whether an article is relgious or not, and BhaiSaab has not been found disruptive on general religion articles. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 02:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Bhaisaab cannot stop himself from fighting over religion, picking fights with both Hindus and Jews. He would probably be a good editor if he were stopped from editing articles on which he cannot see clearly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ikonoblast

1) Ikonoblast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any name is blocked for one year due to harassment and disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. Hkelkar 02:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Support.--D-Boy 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bakasuprman

2) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any name is blocked for one year due to harassment and disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.MerryJ-Ho 11:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Summarily rejected. Bakaman has more DYK's than I do (an, I suspect, more than most involved parties here except maybe daniel bryant or some of the admins) and is an established editor with a good record.There are many users in the evidence talk page who have attested to his ability. It is my opinion that Arbcomm should ignore this frivolous proposal. Hkelkar 11:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rejected. User:TerryJ-Ho seems intent on harassing users who edit controvesial religious articles.--D-Boy 20:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Rejected. Lol. Somehow the community does not find my work to be disruptive. In fact, they may find it to be of value to the 'pedia.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support, per my evidence and that of others on the Evidence page. Also, see my comments below. Hornplease 12:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps this has something to do with get a blog? ArbCom is going to take into account that those who want me gone are those who disagree with my POV. Also since you think wiki is a battleground [112], not the right thing to think. Who is the "per others"? BhaiSaab stated "I think Bakasuprman is usually a good editor", I made a compromise with TwoHorned, and TerryJ-Ho was too busy responding to facts that proved anti-Hindu prejudice on his part.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Baka, you mischaracterise diffs again. The first diff you link to above was not addressed to you, and, as I discussed on the evidence page, must be seen in context. The second diff you link to above uses the phrase 'under attack' about HKelkar in this arbitation. A turn of phrase, and one relatively apt for the heated nature of this discussion. Not an implication that I believe WP is a battleground. Note, in fact, the tone of the request, which is as far from being an attack and as close to being friendly as is possible under the circs.

And the 'others' refers to the evidence that others brought to the table, including Xiapo, TwoHorned, Itsmejudith, and, indeed, yourself. I did not cite their opinions as a basis, but the facts they presented; this might be a good guide for all concerned. Hornplease 21:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Again I compromised with TwoHorned, my interactions with him started and ended on the Koenraad Elst page. I have no idea who itsmejudith is, and I dont believe I have interacted with Xiaopo for all but a couple of run-ins in late september. Its amazing how you accuse me of mischaracterization when you yourself indulge in it as per evidence.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the evidence section for their statements about you. Also, my alleged mischaracterisation (or whatever) should not affect the evidence relating to your tendency to. I just say this so we can perhaps focus less on how terrible I am. Hornplease 23:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well when the only accuser has amazingly large flaws of their own, and has little else on wiki to do but harass contributors it definitely affects the accusers case, especially when the accuser is trying to get users opposed to their POV out of the way and disregards community input.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure I do, have tons to do but it can wait, it doesnt at all, not my reason, and I welcome it, respectively. Hornplease 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retroactively redefining my edits to suit your POV proves nothing except that all the statements in my above comment are absolutely true.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support If the arbitration committee rules that Bakasupraman has been disruptive to the degree accused, this is the appropriate remedy.

Also, to the parties involved, this is not a vote, it is simply an attempt to establish consensus, so that the Abritration Committee may consider the consensus of the editing community. Piling on with personal attacks on TerryJ-Ho and appealing to the record of Bakaman do not add in a positive way to the discussion. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Response - Citing that my editing patterns changed after september does not add to the discussion? Au contraire, its precisely the reason I havent been blocked exorbitant numbers of times like BhaiSaab, and the reason many users who I had conflicts with in the past (contact Ragib (talk · contribs) - I really went after him hard when I was a newbie, but he gave me a second chance) gave me a second chance. Also, I've never been blocked for revert-warring or edit-warring, making allegations of those baseless. I dont think Wizardry Dragon is looking at the whole issue, and possibly he is confused by the fact that the allegations rest on edit patterns long discarded by me (after september 3) and a desire to get me banned, because I'm not dumb enough to get blocked. Citing my edit record (almost 80 articles created, 20+ cats, 1 template, 1 stub, 1 userbox, 9 DYK's) and input from the community should be central to the discussion.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Response Unless you've not been diligent defending yourself, it should already be presented in evidence and thus repeating it here is redundant. If any place on this page is appropriate for such a thing, perhaps the best would be "Proposed findings of fact", propose to be found that your editing pattern was not disruptive. If this is found then the remedy would be summarily dismissed by the Arbitration Committee as inappropriate. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Bakaman not only has more awards to his credit, his record in contributing tirelssly to many articles is well established. He has helped me in the past in finding citations, verification and much else. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, I hope I am doing this correctly (this is my first time). From what I know of Bakamansupran he has been a very great wikipedian and a vital part of WP:HINDU. He has been very civil from my understanding up to this point.__Seadog ^♪ 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - We can only hope it is our first and last time in this quagmire. I got some stuff to go back to after this is over.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Amused Quoting of Perhaps Relevant Diffs: [113]. Hornplease

Response - Everyone is asked to give a statement on ArbCom. Its called consensus.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I've had constructive and positive discussions with Bakaman, even when we disagreed. He's also created far more articles than I ever will - and very good articles! It would be a great loss to Wikipedia if we were to lose him. ॐ Priyanath 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Though I have not been involved in any major discussion with this user, I've seen Bakasuprman working very constructively in Wikipedia. Perhaps in his initial days here in Wikipedia he made some mistakes. However, that is common with many wikipedians. I must say Bakasuprman is an asset to Wikipedia now. He is contributing in varied topics, consistently producing articles for DYK, and participating in other important areas like FACs. I strongly oppose the proposed remedy. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 06:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. As I said a few sections above, all my interactions with him have been positive. — Lost^(talk) 10:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:I was initally pleased that other editors believe that Bakasuprman is being constructive, as it could imply that my experience was seriously flawed. On re-reading the remarks above, however, I can only suppose that (a) some editors do not believe that editors can be constructive in one field yet, overall, dangerously disruptive; and (b) judging by the number of 'based on my interaction' votes, the presentation of any evidence based on diffs is useless. Hornplease 11:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Elaborating on my 'based on my interaction' comment, I would say that I did indeed go through the evidence. I find one thing that stands out. Bakaman reacts to provocations. On the other hand, if an editor with an opposing view approaches him amicably, he responds likewise. My only suggested remedy to him would be what a couple of wikifriends passed on to some others [114]. Having said this, I think the net effect of his contributions to Wikipedia is positive by far. — Lost^(talk) 12:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments I too looked at the difs. The reason I did a 'based on my interaction' vote is 1. Nearly all editors have a few difs, and a couple of interactions, that put them in a really bad light. 2. Bakaman should not be banned from WP, based on his overall record of great editing, and willingness to discuss things, which I have seen in other edits, AND in my own interactions with him. I very strongly oppose his being banned. ॐ Priyanath 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Thank you both for replying, and I apologise for supposing that you did not read the diffs carefully. I think however, that we must disagree on the effect of his net contributions. A tendentious POV-pusher can do enormous damage to the credibility of an encyclopaedia. His energy in creating articles, on which we agree, must be balanced with the tendency to constantly mis-cite in support of his POV, and to reject community input on the interpretation of WP policy. These are not passing things either; Priyanath, if they were only a couple of occasions, I would not be here, and I would agree that restricting his editing is unnecessary. Every time he has worked on a controversial article, it has been the case; unfortunately his talkpage behaviouor under such cases invariably also leaves something to be desired. I have approached him amicably on many, many occasions, as have others on talkpages; but in controversial situations, he does not take well to discussion. WP cant handle that sort of strain. Hornplease 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Miscite? Community Input? I have always used Reliable Sources to back up my edits, and have objectively backed up edits using those reliable sources. Community input I take from users like Deepujoseph (talk · contribs) and Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) not users that wish to drive contributors away from the 'pedia. Every person loses their cool on controversial articles (hence the name "cc\ontroversial"). I find no evidence of "amicability" on your part, and you yourself have a problem with telling users to "live with it"/"get a blog"/ etc. when you think you have made points in an argument. As consensus from real editors shows, the net effect of my contributions has been positive and controversial articles are always quagmires anyways, they dont need the help of users. I always discuss on the talk page and user reliable sources to back up claims. I find Hornplease's accusations and actions top be in bad taste, though I am not surprised given his issues with citing reliable sources and his constant violations of wiki is not a battleground. Looks like Hornplease has forgot what consensus is, and seems to be rejecting community input right now. His whole actions on the RFAr have been weak attacks on Hkelkar and malicious malignment of constructive editors.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see my evidence section for the diffs that explain Bakasuprman's tendency to mis-cite, and and your ignoring of community input from other, uninvolved, established editors; including those whom you had used to support your opinions earlier.

Note: every user does not lose their cool on controversial articles. Bakasuprman persists in interpreting "live with it" as an aggressive statement, when it was the opposite; I was recommending that he calm down and move on when an argument is unwinnable. He persists in mis-quoting a statement of mine in response to a long statement inappropriate to a WP talkpage as "get a blog". Every word that I say civilly is willingly misconstrued.

Controversial articles need not be quagmires, and talkpages need not be incivil. His ready acceptance of and willingness to join in incivility and quagmiring (!) is exactly the problem.

Finally, Baka: this section is not about me. A number of your recent posts to this page have focused on my shortcomings as an editor, and as a person. Please open an RfC, or a section of this RfArb, instead of this low-level sniping. Note the adjectives above: weak, malicious, bad taste; an (ironic) implication that I drive people away from WP and that I am not a real editor. All this, and the baldly stated accusations, in a few short sentences. Baka, I suppose, for the four hundredth time in our interaction, urging calm on you is pointless? Hornplease 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Low level sniping? The only user stooping to low levels is you, in an attempt to drive away contributors from the encyclopedia. "Live With It" cannot be a good faith statement, its merely a euphemism for "Hah. I won! Suck it!" (and other synonymous terms).Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was pointless, I thought so. Hornplease 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the consensus opposing your bad faith statements, the only pointless thing is the ruckus being created in this arbcom by you trying to redefine my constructive edits under policies retroactively due to an intersection between your POV on the policy and edits where I confronted you which were undefinable at that point in time, and therefore still cannot be defined under certain new policies.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for creating a 'ruckus'; I do agree there seems to be too much conversation in these proceedings. Note that I have several times agreed that Baksuprman is capable of considerable productivity edits, while maintaining that his overall pattern is tendentious and net effect disruptive; that above I have twice replied to his suddenly identified concerns about WP:DE; and that I have every confidence ArbComm is more than capable of looking around in histories and identify the degree to which the remarks here are reflective of Bakasuprman's entire structure of contributions on WP, or a strictly limited ("in my experience") subset thereof. Thanks! Hornplease 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - My interactions with him have been positive. Moreover, I agree with Priyanath: Bakaman's overall record shows that he does not merit such a ban.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 18:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - He has made valuable contributions. Opinions can differ on many topics but this is too harsh a punishment. Please re-think. -- P.K.Niyogi 19:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Statement_on_Bakasuprman_by_utcursch. Bakasuprman is a valuable contributor. utcursch | talk 02:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose When I first encountered Bakaman, I expected that he would "circle the wagons" with those who share his views.[115]

Instead, he kept his word about warning one of his friends not to blank his talk page.[116]

Unlike many editors who share his views, Bakaman does not exhibit incorrigible incivility.

He is, if anything, a moderating influence on such editors.[117]

There will — and should be — editors who share Bakaman's views.

And it is far better that they conduct themselves like Bakaman than Shiva's Trident or Freedom skies.

JFD 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose he continues to make invaluable contributions to wikipedia and wikiprojects pertaining to India, Bengal, and Bangladesh. My interaction with him have been completely positive and he's edited many of my newly created articles (all improving on them). Antorjal 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I only just noticed this, and do not know if it still matters. I would just like to put my opposition on the record. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 11:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Bakasuprman a reasonable, moderate and constructive editor. IMHO he needs to be praised not punished. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I have had several interactions with Bakasuprman in language/script related articles and discussions. Bakasuprman has made several constructive edits and his discussion posts have been highly valuable to the Wikipedia community. As a result, I oppose the proposal. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE - Who has gone mad to ask for ban of one year for Bakasuprman? Baka has been an asset of Wikipedia and an asset as well dear of Wikipedians. If, somebody wants to ban Bakasuprman, I think, he should as well propose to close down Wikipedia. If, Baka is blocked for an year, I think many like me give you cause to propose indifinite block for us. I came to know today only from Priyanath's message to HeBhagawan that a move is on to block Baka for an year. I can't stop my laughing. I am sure that the proposal would be withdrawn. If, Baka is seen excellent by everyone, one who finds him disruptive should introspect. Prabhu Sadbuddhi De in ko. Baka can not do wrong. Terry may not do any right? Take it lightly Terry. swadhyayee 10:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Bakaman is willing to talk with those who disagree with him—including myself—rather than at them, which cannot be said for many, if not most, of his comrades.
CiteCop 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Probation

1) In lieu of a one-year ban for edit warring and incivility, Hkelkar (talk · contribs), BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) and TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs) are placed on extended personal attack, civility and edit warring parole for one year. Any uninvolved administrator can block any of the three for up to one week for edit warring, incivility and personal attacks, and up to one year after the fifth block. The Arbitration Committee also reminds the parties that claiming tu quoque and/or "I was baited, he/she was being incivil" etc. defences when attempting to be unblocked should not be used, and recommends that any administrator reviewing {{unblock}} requests on these grounds decline the request. Hkelkar, TerryJ-Ho and Bhaisaab are also placed on standard one-revert parole; that is, both are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, both are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I like this, but am quite skeptical. Fred Bauder 23:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Like Fred, I too am skeptical about this proposal. If we propose to ban these editors from all religion and related articles, then you are doing the same thing as banning them entirely as the top 15 articles edited by all of them are all related to this arbcom case in some way or the other. ( this and [118]). It is becoming difficult to control the behaviour of these editors because of the number of people and articles involved. Just have a look at Blnguyen's statement. Also, the term "uninvolved admin" is unclear. Most of the admins who watch these pages have become involved to a certain extent (Srikeit, Blnguyen, Sir Nicholas, Da Gizza, Dmcdevit, Rama's Arrow) all of whom have warned or blocked the users repeatedly. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Seems silly to ban three editors for one year, when they could be closely monitored and subdued using an ArbCom remedy. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Correction - Hope you dont mind Mr. Bauder.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I share Fred's skepticism. At a minimum, I would want to see a ban on editing articles or talk pages related to this case, broadly interpreted (anything related to India, Pakistan, or religion, for starters) in addition to every parole Fred can think of. Also, paroles are only as effective as the admins who are prepared to enforce them. Please look here and put yourself in my shoes. Thatcher131 01:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thinking further, assuming that editors are on their best behavior when involved in an arbitration case and editing case pages in full view of the arbitrators, do you really think that parole would be sufficient? Thatcher131 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a start. Actually the one-revert per week will be good, perhaps we can encourage more IP's that edit the articles (the controversial ones) to get accounts and then the effect of BhaiSaab and TerryJ-Ho's reverts would be diluted.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the natural skepticism. Maybe an out-clause which states "through Motions in prior cases, if there is a continued pattern of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring by the parties, a one-year ban on those involved may be put in place" etc. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me think about this.Hkelkar 02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

" to get accounts and then the effect of BhaiSaab and TerryJ-Ho's reverts would be diluted"..I fail to understand this language from proponents of Hindutvavad on Wikipedia pages MerryJ-Ho 11:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Response - Its precisely little statements like these prove you are not neutral in any way, and that you do have amazingly emotional biases.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Viable. Editors like HKelkar do have contributions and awards to their credit. A one year ban for editors who contribute extensively and who are thought by the community to be good enough to recive such awards is just not viable. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong, Thatcher), Thatcher113 is responsible for upholding ArbCom remedies, and as far as I have been able to see, Thatcher is not involved with any of the parties in the matter, so he if no one else would be a suitable neutral administrator, although I am not happy leaving that burden to him alone. I do see potential for abuse of this remedy by involved administrators seeking some sort of retribution against parties in the case however. I'll reserve judgement until these concerns have been addressed, as it is an idea with merit. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Every admin is responsible for upholding Arbcom remedies. However, at the present time, I seem to be the only one responding to complaints at Arbitration enforcement. This could be interpreted several ways. Perhaps enforcement is so efficient that most complaints never reach the board. However, I tend to think that enforcement is less efficient and less proactive than the arbitrators would like. Thatcher131 13:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A-ha. Current circumstance would make it look like it was your responsibility as I have never seen anyone but you enforcing decisions. There is still the issue of involved admins needing to recuse themselves, but surely not every active admin on the english Wikipedia has been involved in this affair? ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab not to contact Hkelkar

1) BhaiSaab is banned from attempting to contact Hkelkar outside of wikipedia. He must not post any information on wikipedia relating to Hkelkar's real life without his permission. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - Hkelkar may have been in danger and Dboy left wikipedia for a while precisely because of fear of BhaiSaab.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh. it wasn't fear. I never give details of my identitiy out on the internet. I was just sick and tired of the deletions like fundy watch.--D-Boy 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you substantiate the 'danger' part? Otherwise please moderate your language. Hornplease 11:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The danger part is in my username.--D-Boy 07:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Propose dismissal. This is something quite outside of the jurisdiction of Wikipedia, or the ArbCom. The ArbCom cannot seriously entertain such a remedy. They can, and most likely will dissuade him or her from contacting others outside of Wikipedia, but they have little power to enforce such a thing. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Support-The ceasing of disruptive interactions is one way to contain the issue. This way is more viable and practical then the one year ban. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. Who we are on WP should ideally be quite unrelated to who we are off it, in my opinion. Hornplease 11:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by Block

1) Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Standard ArbCom procedure as far as I'm aware. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Ongoing edit wars

• BhaiSaab and Hkelkar at Indian caste system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hkelkar at Dalit Buddhist movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BhaiSaab at Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Added Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

notes Thatcher131 19:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

edited. Add 1 dispute.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: