Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

Blnguyen
Charles Matthews
FloNight
Fred Bauder
Jdforrester
Jpgordon
Kirill Lokshin
Morven
Mackensen
SimonP
UninvitedCompany

Inactive/away

Flcelloguy
Neutrality
Paul August
Raul654

Comments

Contradictory? Unclear? Why are we having this discussion? Has the ArbCom started policing private channels of communication? This is plain ridiculous. Do I need to point out various instances where communication over IRC was rejected as any kind of evidence by the ArbCom? Please judge us solely on what we do here on Wikipedia. Note to clerks: Please do NOT remove this message. This needs to be read by each and every arbitrator. We're not a banana republic, and there has to be accountability on each and every function of the ArbCom. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 04:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're on the verge of closing without remedies for that very reason. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mack, and what about the on-wiki evidence that I have produced? Please do take a look – [1]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen et al - I don't care what other stuff y'all decide on, you have to settle the question of whether the blocks were justified or not. Apart from the e-mail evidence, substantial on-wiki evidence has been provided over Bakasuprman, D-Boy and Sbhushan's disruptive activitis and tag-teaming with Hkelkar's socks. If you don't settle that question, you will not have answered the central issue that brought all this to ArbCom. If you don't, I am personally inclined to reinstate the blocks (which were removed only for this case) based on the evidence provided and the ANI consensus - and that is not gonna be devoid of controversy. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is some aspect of "the Committee is unable to determine whether the various allegations made regarding the involved parties are accurate" unclear? Kirill Lokshin 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it is "unclear" why "the Committee" is not giving its opinion on the on-wiki evidence presented to substantiate the case. There are more than 50 diffs presented regarded Baka, D-Boy and Sbhushan's disruptive editing and tag-teaming with Hkelkar's socks. I can understand if you don't want to deal with the question of e-mail evidence, but this is on-wiki evidence. And P.S. - Lokshin, lose the attitude, ok? You and your precious "Committee" had no hesitation in ignoring my request for guidance, which could have prevented this mess. What makes you think you have any right to lecture me now? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I have some respect for all the hard work, tension and headache taken up by Baka, D-Boy, Sbhushan, Abecedare, myself, DaGizza and Sir Nick to present their cases to the best of their abilities. You and your pompous Committee have said nothing, done nothing to help resolve this issue, acted irresponsibly by ignoring my request for guidance and now you are telling us that hours of work digging up diffs and configuring e-mails and arguing on workshops and soul-searching about one's purpose on Wikipedia is for nothing? 1-2 cop-out proposals, 1-2 wise ass comments and we're done, eh? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for God's sake, there is a bloody direct precedence with the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan and Hkelkar 1 - you can't even uphold your own line of judgment and decisions. The same parties have been involved in 3-4 ArbCom cases and other failed ArbCom requests - get ready for yet another case over exactly the same issues in a month's time. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is even a single diff of Sbhushan's tag-team with Hkelkar's sock? Here is a diff of Rama's Arrow's defending Hkelkar's sock [2]; Fowler has provide more evidence of RA with Hkelkar's sock. So who is meatpuppet of Hkelkar? On one point I agree with Rama's Arrow, don't leave us in limbo. Rama's Arrow should be held responsible for his mudslinging and abuse of admin power. On different note please resolve the dispute with Dbachmann. I have tried all options; spend six months trying to resolve this. After last rejection of ArbCom request, Dbachmann undid months of work and that is disruptive behavior. Dbachmann is creating this battleground on wikipedia. It is NOT a content dispute. Wishing the problem to go away, will not make it go away, it will just get worse.Sbhushan 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the pissing contest that the workshop and evidence pages became -- "You suck! "no, you suck!" "no, you're an asshole!" "no, YOU'RE the asshole" -- is hardly making it better, and I've had trouble finding a single contributor to either that seems worth listening to for more than a paragraph. From what I can tell, every single one of you should be blocked for activities not conducive to improving the encyclopedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure Jp? :))) It will be fun to see you defend your decisions on ANI, and then ArbCom! LOL Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fun thing is that I don't have to. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right.... Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd be cool with getting blocked as long as Rama's Arrow and DaGizza receive the same penalties and are no longer admins.--D-Boy 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think arbcom is acting correctly. Rama can point us to unicorns, meatpuppetry, East Dakota whatever he wants. Whatever. As soon as my name is cleared of these opprobrious nonsense, I'm WP:VANISH.Baka man 01:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word.--D-Boy 03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - If you people want to keep up this bickering on the Workshop, go right ahead. It doesn't belong here. This is all part of the problem and in no way furthers a solution. Thank you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

Admin actions between parties barred

I would like some clarification about this proposed remedy. As there are 9 parties involved in this case including me, does it pertain to all the admins named? I do not really understand why I was named as an involved party as the only way I was involved was through endorsing Nirav's actions at ANI along with a host of other admins who have not been named as involved parties. If I can take the liberty of saying so, my admin actions have never been considered to be biased in any manner. Could the arbcom consider excluding my name from the involved parties, or excluding me from this remedy? Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might move to be removed as a party? Oh Wise Arbcom Clerk: is that how it works? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do would be to list specifically the admins you intend to cover by the remedy. It appears that Aski_great has not blocked any of the parties before, and no one presented evidence against him or made workshop proposals against him. In that case you might reword the remedy as follows:

As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this dispute (Rama's Arrow, Sir Nicholas, Dbachman and DaGizza) are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves. Thatcher131 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never took any admin action against the parties involved and my name was dragged into the dispute for no reason at all. I would also like to add my disagreement to what Aksi great writes there. It is true that he has not made any controversial blocks against the parties; we cannot ignore the fact that he chose to accept Rama's Arrow's email evidence (without looking at it) as a reason to block the aggrieved parties, which was ill-advised in my opinion. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom should also note that Aksi great was an involved party in the original Hkelkar case. This should not be apprehended as a criticism of Aksi great. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the facts (which I only glanced at) I think the most efficient way for the arbitrators to include or exclude editors from remedies is to name them specifically in the remedy itself. Thatcher131 06:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly one way of doing it. Another would be to refer to "administrators in this case who have previously been in conflict with another party...." See also my comments on User talk:Morven regarding the wording. Regards, Newyorkbrad 07:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Thatcher's idea is much better as your version still leaves a lot of ambiguity. It still leaves upto the administrators involved to see if they were in conflict with the other users which has always been the case. I have no problem with the first sentence "As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in." as that is normal practice. The second sentence is where the problem is, especially the "under no circumstances" part. It would be best if the AC does mention the names of administrators part of the remedy. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is ambiguity it is because as administrators you're expected to be able to use your brains and work out if you are too involved. I would suggest that it is likely that if any administrator listed as a party to this case used administrative powers against any other party, it would be interpreted by some as being too involved. Err on the side of caution. You are expected to be able to behave appropriately. You are not children and we are not parents. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I am trying to say. If ultimately I have to work it out by myself (something which I have always done), what is the need of an explicit proposal barring me from blocking anyone involved in this case "under no circumstances"? There is no evidence against me, none of my blocks have been controversial, and I consider myself capable of "using my brains" as nicely put by you :). As I have said before, could the AC consider a proposal removing me from the list of involved parties as suggested by Jpgordon, or consider explicitly stating the names of administrators to be restricted under the proposed remedy as stated by Thatcher? - Aksi_great (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can start that off yourself. In the Workshop, the first thing is "Motions and requests by the parties". Request to be removed from the case. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the ArbCom could analyse acceptable evidence themselves and propose findings of facts. Nishkid and myself have been charged of "meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry" and teaming with some other users who were blocked. No evidence has been produced with regards to that. The blocks of ED trolls were endorsed by the community, and have been brought up as a part of some dirt-digging venture. Reminding administrators (who have not blocked involved parties) is self-contradictory. Only two admins in this case have taken actions against involved parties, pertaining to the issues raised in this case, and those are Rama's Arrow and Dbachmann.

The ArbCom should define/redefine meatpuppetry
The ArbCom should highlight the role of administrators/users in this dispute through a proposed findings of fact etc. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Aksi_great has posted his proposals to the /Workshop. Newyorkbrad 18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This commentary with allusions to "tyrants and rapists" and scads of personal attacks is unwelcome on the arbitration pages, certainly in any case that I am clerking. Take it to your talkpage if you must, or better yet, don't. Newyorkbrad 23:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, these personal attacks are not helping the case by any means. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The imagination of arbitrators

While fully realizing the exhausting amount of call there is, day by day, on the faculty of imagination in the arbiters, I still want to make a plea for them to use more imagination and less letter-of-the-law logic in respect to proposed remedy 4, "Admin actions between parties barred". It's only a minority of the admins named as parties who have abused their button to block content adversaries. Those who haven't are hurt and distressed, per many posts above, at a remedy that seems to target themselves. To target them was surely not the intention of the proposal, but it's how they feel. It seems to me that it's not right to put them off with a "no admin is supposed to do that anyway." No, indeed we're not, so why is it proposed as a remedy for this particular case at all? Of course that's because one or two admins did do it. In justice to the others, please consider complementing the remedy with the names of those that did, per Thatcher above, or with a finding of fact about who did, per Nick. Is it really necessary to have the other admins jump through hoops in that swamp of a Workshop page, requesting to be removed as involved parties? Aksi great did that, as soon as it was suggested by jpgordon above, three days ago; no arb or clerk has replied to his request yet.[3] And as Nearly Headless Nick points out in the same place,[4] the proposed remedy is a sanction, and one against the innocent and the guilty alike. Bishonen | talk 12:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You do have a point, that's been brought up in private communication as well. The thought was, at the time, that those for whom this wasn't the case would realise they were not being addressed, while those that were would take a hint without naming names.

That's not as bold an action as arbcom could take, and there are definitely many who argue that the main failing of arbcom of late is equivocation, worry about hurting feelings of those who have done wrong (even if forgivable wrong) and perhaps not enough worry about hurting the feelings of those who didn't really do anything wrong.

Despite the opinions stated by some that this case should basically be thrown out as worthless because of the sheer mass of dubious evidence sent arbcom's way, I don't think it can be. I think we're still a long way off a proposed decision I'd wish to close on. There are a number of matters, especially in terms of off-Wiki behaviour, that we cannot come to a definitive answer on, both because it is beyond our reach AND because it's hard to determine the veracity of any accounts of it we receive. However, behind all the who said what nasty thing in email or plotted with whoever on what BBS, there's been some solid on-Wiki behaviour that needs to be addressed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Likely that this case is going to have more specific ruling before we're done. FloNight 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unsolicited opinion

If Rama's Arrow is desysopped, it would be the least justified such action arbcom has ever taken. I would urge the committee to think seriously about whether they want to take that step. There is only one admin tools-related incident listed in the proposed findings of fact. No pattern of misuse has been established. I am puzzled also by the suggestion that this remedy is in R.A.'s "best interests." When did arbcom become responsible for any interests other than those of the project and the community? Chick Bowen 04:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main line of argument seems to be like "he is a better editor than an admin, so let's desysop him so that he'll be forced to write". And this is supposed to be a volunteer project. Tintin 05:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong he misused his tools badly twice. The two blunders led to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan] and this current funfest.Baka man 06:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is available, and it is quite clear that RA has used the tools in an inappropriate manner. The main problem is that he kept on blocking users while being in dispute with them even after this case commenced – [5]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity Baka, didn't you support Rama's Arrow's actions during the India-Pakistan case? And it was not just you of course. I supported him, many other established editors supported him and most importantly the arbitrators were convinced by his argument and evidence in the end. That was why those four were blocked. The situation here of course is different and more complicated. Gizza^Chat ^© 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had criticized his blocks of szhaider (while Rama warred with him) both on and off wiki, however I am not pretending to be a defender of wikipedia, willing to lay my honor on the line to protect someone with the opposite POV. I am not an admin, nor do I really care to be, so I dont have that responsibility. As for my edits, I dont create controversy, I report it. Brinda Karat, Narendra Modi, and Rahul Gandhi were controversial before I edit, not just after my educated superior comes to exorcise the Hindu demon I am. The Indian users are split now, with Rama losing a large amount of support by merely defending his judicious and ideal utilization of admin powers to send Hkelkar's mindslaves back into the oblivion they came from.Baka man 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent problem is that Wikipedia's justice delivery system, also known as, the Arbitration process, has become more adversarial, rather than inquisitorial, which is what it should be. Conclusion: We need more guys like Fred Bauder. d:-) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I definitely agree with you there. :) The problem is the difficulty in placing an inquisitorial system in practice. Forget about Wikipedia, much of the decisions made by the world's leading politicians and people in power are influenced by strength of argument, not the truth. Gizza^Chat ^© 13:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is subjective, a notion, a perspective. What hurts more than injustice, is justice itself. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood my point, Bakasuprman (as you did in your e-mail to me, Nick). I am talking about the findings of fact on this page. If they are construed to justify desysopping, that would be lowering the standards for that action beyond what it has been in every previous case. That is all I meant. Chick Bowen 17:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing through this page."We need more guys like Fred Bauder" - I have not come across this name.Is he so significant..what is all this case about? Mcleodganj 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is a member of arbcom. His work has helped wikipedia, esp. vis-a-vis Bhaisaab and Hkelkar.Baka man 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar and his ilk [sic]

Can someone define "Hkelkar and his ilk"? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com gives a rough idea on ilk can mean in different contexts. Here I think it refers to those who perhaps sympathise with Hkelkar (past and/or present), act in a similar manner or share similar beliefs. Does that help you? Gizza^Chat ^© 13:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and that is exactly what is nonplussing about this. On what basis was that statement made? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the fact that Hkelkar thinks Wikipedia is the place to Fight For The Glory Of His People(tm) and is hence thoroughly unwelcome here (as is anyone else who thinks that's what Wikipedia is for)? Or am I not understanding your question? Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that you are "uncomfortable with desysopping substantially for attempting, in good faith [sic], to protect the project from Hkelkar and his ilk". Synonyms for ilk is "fraternity" or "family". You believe that Rama's Arrow was protecting the project from his "ilk"? If so, in what way? Which users inherently constitute this ilk? Or are you seriously considering the "cabal" emails distributed? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious, I think, that Hkelkar continues to attempt to interfere in Wikipedia, and that other individuals (whether Wikipedia editors or otherwise) are encouraging and abetting his activities. The question here is whether any of the involved parties in this case are doing so; the evidence presented in this respect is insufficient to prove anything. Having said that, I also think that RA could, in good faith, have believed said evidence to be sufficient (particularly if, as it seems, parts of it were forged by other individuals); hence, my discomfort with desysopping him for what I can reasonably see as an honest mistake. Kirill Lokshin 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed Bakasuprman's assertions about Rama's Arrow's continual references to "[our] Hindu-Indian cabal" – [6], over emails? That email was forwarded to me by Bakasuprman long before this case had commenced. If you have not received it, please let me know. The predicament is that if somebody reads and believes those emails and blindly trust some editors, it will lead them to have predisposed notions about others. It is only on-wiki evidence that can be considered concrete in such circumstances, because the software logs the date and time of each comment made here. Looking in retrospect, I cannot say that I did not presuppose the kind of finger-pointing we have witnessed over the Evidence page. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My statement

Kirill Lokshin is right in that I have always tried to do my best for Wikipedia. My loyalty and efforts are for Wikipedia and its policies. The charges that I have rejected criticism and abused blocking policies (as suggested in Blnguyen's proposals) are completely wrong - I have shown exhaustively in my evidence statement that there have been many examples where I respectfully discussed and resolved issues regarding blocks with administrators such as Tariqabjotu, KillerChihuahua, Bishonen, Dbachmann and even in the latest issue with Humus sapiens. I have always been receptive of constructive criticism and have frequently solicited criticism and evaluation of my actions on WP:ANI. I agree that this was a complex case where I should have asked for the input of others, but I HAD DONE EXACTLY THAT. I wrote e-mails explaining the issues to Fred Bauder, Kirill Lokshin and the ArbCom mailing list. When I don't get a reply, not even telling me to hold my hand, I have to do what I believe is best to do - and even so, I immediately reported the blocks at ANI and invited criticism. Those blocks were endorsed by a large number of administrators and editors.

On displaying e-mail evidence, on ANI I had repeatedly tried to make sure if there were any objections and took all precautions possible. No private information that wasn't already on Wikipedia was revealed. What Blnguyen oversighted were only small excerpts of the conversations relevant as evidence - it may have been imprudent but it certainly wasn't a violation of privacy. It wasn't publishing an e-mail, as poignant summarization and paraphrasing was all I was attempting.

As for charges of emotionalism, that is human nature. During this case, I have been accused of being a forger, lier, conspirator, meatpuppet (ironic, yes), fundamentalist, an abusive admin. After all the hard work, it is not easy to keep cool when one is ganged up on by 6-7 trolls who I know within my heart, mind and soul to be clearly, viciously and unashamedly lying about everything. Keeping in mind the good advice of Newyorkbrad and others, I decided to walk away from the pointless abusive exchanges on the workshop and I have not commented for much of the week. I repeatedly apologized for my incivil behavior and sought the advice of those whom I respect, such as Phaedriel to improve my overall behavior.

If you want to fire an honest cop, go ahead. Come tomorrow, another admin(s) will bring up a case involving the same parties and the same dispute, the same allegations. Whether I have the tools to block or delete, the battle for WP:NPOV will continue because the problems are too real. I have already said that I'd rather not have the tools if I am supposed to look the other way on the disruption of Wikipedia, no matter how complex. I am 100% proud of my actions and my work. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I was talking to Rama) You should surely be 100% proud of your actions as well as you works. I fully understand your position. My user page as it appears right now also have some words: "When a building is on fire, a leader will not survey everyone to see what the consensus is about a response. It is time for action." When the integrity of Wikipedia is compromised by someone, no administrator is expected to simply stand and stare. I do accept that I also respect most of the other editors involved - but, each one of us should understand that wikipedia movement is bigger than any individual or group of individuals. I hope that the mist shall roll away and the sunshine shall return soon. --Bhadani (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been utterly foolish. As opposed to initiating an RfAr when you first discovered these problems, you (1) blocked users indiscriminately, (2) posted private information on ANI, (3) showcased the same with irrelevant tidbits to draw attention to the matter, and (4) drew in an administrator that you've had conflict with into this. Since the RfAr started, you've been horrendously uncivil, you've mocked and made fun of a number of arbitrators, administrators and users, and have continued with an ill-advised pattern of blocking. To boot, if you want to talk about e-mails, you've sent AMbroodEY, Samir, Sir Nicholas and others a number of profanity filled and threatening e-mails, since this RfAr started. Your self-description as an "honest cop" is far from the truth. I think your behavior has been atrocious, and I think the Arbs are entirely justified in removing your sysop status -- D-Boy 09:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not lie, D-Boy. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least provide some semblance of maturity here?.Baka man 02:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who said this over email to AMbroodEY? – "And I'll kill Anirudh the next time I visit [Sir Nicholas's place of residence]..." The only reason I did not make reference to this email on-wiki until now was that this could scare off productive contributors from the encyclopedia. You have blocked editors whimsically and issued death-threats to scare other contributors. And now you are pretending to be "a good cop". You should be desysoped immediately. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I know that you're just flat-out lying and making up this stuff yourself. And given that your friend AMbroodEY claimed (and you upheld that) that he "forged" everything, what is the point of you raising any e-mail sent to you by him? Nice attempt to pile on nonsense while the issue of e-mail evidence is debated, but your hypocrisy is more than exposed - if you're so bloody opposed to e-mail evidence, I'm not sure why you're making up this nonsense to attack me. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you "vouched for the integrity" of "my friend" AMbroodEY, right here. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vouched for it once and I'll vouch again - I know that AMbroodEY didn't fake anything, but that you threatened him into claiming - ArbCom has already seen your e-mail conversations where you threaten. My point was - as you believe that AMbroodEY faked everything and that e-mail evidence is irrelevant, what is the point of producing your own version of e-mail evidence from a source you consider to be fraudulent? And the point remains - you are a liar and a confirmed forger. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And need I point out, that any successful sting requires a bit of behavior otherwise regretted. I was never thrilled about e-mailing people like Baka and AMbroodEY, but otherwise I wouldn't be able to establish his connection with Hkelkar. The "good cop" logic is that I took action - you were aware of all this but you did nothing - in fact, you encouraged them to "push POV" while boasting of your ability to bully and harass others, thanks to gaining adminship. Cheers, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I am a big fat liar; and if the Arbitration Committee does not take note of the email, perhaps I could contact those who would. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't issue legal threats - you should know better. And I'll be interested to see why ArbCom should think your faked email is reliable while my evidence is not. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of you seems to have learned the importance of Shutting The Hell Up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you set the example, Mr. No-sanctions but let's desysopp RA for incivility that I regularly practice myself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I just like giving you more rope; you seem quite adept at using it on yourself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am tying it to my wrist - the other end goes around your neck. Very nice to see an arbitrator abuse others and trying to "bait" others and thinking of himself as a "hangman" or an executioner. It will inspire an interesting debate not only on your remaining an arbitrator, but even an administrator. To quote thee - "some people are better off without the mop bucket." :)) Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Once again, a discussion in this case has gone beyond the bounds of acceptable advocacy. Unless any arbitrators wish to comment, this thread is closed. Newyorkbrad 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two requests

1. My observations of involved parties and the arbitrator deduce there is a general consensus that the actions of User:Rama's Arrow were not conducted in the best manner. We have accepted that criticism now. I ask the arbitrators however, to see what our motivation and intentions were initially. As Kirill has pointed out, it is clear that trolls such as Hkelkar and Maleabroad have attempted to recruit meatpuppets and the like.

What we have shown is that there is a person by the name of “Jesussucks” on the extremist forum, Hindu Unity who has attempted and slightly successfully, recruited meatpuppets to sway Wikipedia articles towards their POV. Now my initial examination of that troll was that it was User:Dangerous-Boy though I am open to other possible users (If Jesussucks isn’t you Dangerous-Boy, then I sincerely apologise). But the fact remains that JS hasn’t been punished as of yet and he/she deserves to be punished. My first request is to urge everyone who have participated in this arbitration case, is to find as much information about who that user possibly is. While many will say the meatpuppets that trolls like Hkelkar and Maleabroad recuit don’t have any long-term affect on Wiki because their edits will be reverted, “votes” on AFDs will be discounted and are blocked ASAP, they fail to realise the psychological effect they create. Many users I know of have left temporarily or permanently because of these trolls. They aren’t simple vandals. Their racist and sickening beliefs can potentially repel productive editors to the project. That is my fundamental concern for Wikipedia. NPOV has to be maintained, being one of our most important policies.

2. After concluding that the off-wiki evidence is too doubtful, the community and arbitrators are slowly agreeing that the on-wiki behaviour of the parties should be taken into account for the proposed decisions and remedies. This may be obvious but I would like to remind the arbitrators to investigate all comments made by any user partaking in the arbitration and not just those users who have received more of the spotlight. A lot of bad behaviour has occurred among many of the editors and the remedies should reflect the extent to which each user has acted in bad faith, incivilly etc. Thank you for hopefully listening to my requests and your incredible patience so far! I'm glad you aren't Following the herd (ie, employing the Bandwagon effect), but are individually thinking about the situation very thoroughly. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maleabroad/"Hindutva trolls" are not the only bigots on Wikipedia. We have many bigots that function as admins and a couple are involved in this arbitration case.Baka man 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that. There are trolls supporting all ideologies, political and national mysticist. Who are these bigots who function as admins and the couple who involved in this case? I do have a good idea of who you are referring to though and may I say, it is better to show rather than tell. But back to your point, yes bigots are found all over Wikipedia and as any loyal Wikipedian would, I oppose them all. The problem is that in the subjective world we live in, prejudiced people often accuse others of being prejudiced, whether they are or not. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observations as a third party

(The following is entirely my personal opinion. You don't have to agree or disagree with this, or refute it in any way.)

Recently, I read some news about some Home Depot employees being fired because they caught a shoplifter by aiding the police. While they did it to save the store some money, apparently it was against Home Depot's "policies" about not prosecuting the shoplifters. So, while the fired employees worked in good faith for the benefit of the store, they themselves faced the brunt of the "policies".

Why do I say this? Because it appears to me that instead of looking at the big picture, the arbitrators are trying to do exactly the same to Rama's Arrow. While his publication of personal emails here may not be "kosher", it is clear that he did it in good faith, for the betterment of wikipedia. If a user finds any group attempting at any planned pov-pushing attempt, they should definitely report this. I think the previous case involving several Pakistani users had a similar root.

So, if RA crossed some lines in blocking someone, censure his actions. But punishing him for acting in good faith to prevent a scheme for POV-pushing in Wikipedia is too much of an injustice. And same is claiming it is in "his own benefit". We are all volunteers here, and punishing someone for reporting an off-wiki scheme is simply a victory for the schemers. If RA didn't have sufficient evidence, just say his case is baseless, instead of inventing ways to punish RA ("for his own benefit"!!).

As mentioned at the start, this is my personal opinion of the case, and you don't necessarily have to jump in and refute anything. Thanks. --Ragib 07:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ragib. You told "don't necessarily have to jump in and refute anything". Fine. I have jumped (wow...from the Mount Everest!) to agree :) --Bhadani (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sbhushan's statement

I had no interaction with Rama’s Arrow before this. After looking at his contribution as an editor, I think it will be a loss to Wikipedia if he stops making his editorial contributions. But I do have concerns about his administrative actions. A line from Spiderman I — “With great power comes great responsibility”. A person, who doesn’t understand the impact of his accusations on people, should not be given power to exercise it so easily. Do you see any evidence, after all this, that RA realizes his mistake?

Some people have said above that RA was making “good faith effort”. Is falsifying evidence, uncivil behaviour, calling people “troll” — "good faith effort"? Evidence fabrication is documented on the evidence page. Someone who can’t keep control on his emotions should not have power to act on those emotions.

What about the stress and harassment that he caused me? My fault in this whole process was that I discussed Dbachmann in that mailing list. I am a volunteer too and am working to improve the project in my small way. As if dealing with abuse from Dbachmann was not enough — now I have to handle RA’s accusation also. Do I need all this?

I have documented disruptive behaviour by Dbachmann—creating battleground on Wikipedia, admin power abuse, POV-pushing, etc. Is ArbCom doing anything about that? How am I going to mediate with a person who refuses mediation effort? Tag-team POV pushing happens on Wikipedia; this creates a battleground on Wikipedia. This on-wiki disruptive behaviour has to be addressed.Sbhushan 16:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sbhushan's statement really puts things in perspective. If Hkelkar is disruptive, then what we have seen in the last month and a half as a result of Rama's thoughtless blocks is nothing short of disruption. In my statement here, I had urged the arbcom to look at the issues involved here in isolation. I urge them once again not to bundle content issues, civility etc., with the issue of examining the validity of these blocks. I say this because, if you are to judge content issues, civility issues, tag teaming etc., it would be totally unfair to do so without making party to it atleast another dozen or so editors. This is a slugfest that has gone on for a year atleast(under the very nose of many admins) and there are several editors involved on both sides. It would be a miscarriage of justice to judge only a few of them simply because they had the misfortune of being on the wrong end of an unfair block and hence ended up before the arbcom. Sarvagnya 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aksi_great's statement

Well, as everyone is making statements again, I didn't want to be left behind :) (To the Mighty Clerk(s) - remove this if it annoys anyone) - Aksi_great (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RA got baka blocked

he used third party means: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#edit-warring_duo :(--D-Boy 05:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By which you mean of course that neutral, uninvolved admins (in this case several) took one look at the situation and felt that blocking Baka was warranted. JFD 06:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ridiculous statement (by D-Boy) should explain more about the mindset of our trolling friends than anything else - the moment one of their "allies" is blocked, the ridiculous whining begins. No respect whatsoever for the reasons and basis for action. I strongly urge the arbitrators to note that (1) Bakasuprman disrupted Wikipedia and engaged in blatant edit-warring while this case was on; it should clearly show that he has no respect whatsoever for any Wikipedia policy, and no patience or desire to pursue dispute resolution. (2) This ideological edit-warring - neither Anwar saadat nor Bakasuprman felt any need to discuss the issues; each knew what the other was trying to do - to Baka, Anwar is an "Islamist" troll and to Anwar, Baka is a "Hindu fundamentalist troll." Not page protection, warnings/urgings could induce them to pursue dispute resolution - just blanket edit-warring. What am I talking about - please read my evidence statement again. Is this not a battleground mentality, or what?. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 09:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And make no mistake - they gamed WP:3RR on 3-4 articles over one month - they knew exactly what they were up to. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 09:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RA clearly noted that he was not acting on this due to the conflict of interest generated by this RfArb. Several admins looked into this and acted properly. Any wikipedian with a good faith would do the same kind of reporting edit wars. If RA had used his admin tools in blocking any of them, you would have a valid point. But posting a note in an open notice board, clearly noting the conflict of interest, and simply stating the facts for other admins - who agreed with the comment and acted accordingly - are by no means any thing to complain about. In fact, everyone should report such behavior as soon as they find them ... to keep Wikipedia a better place. --Ragib 09:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. to Arbitrators - if you haven't realized, all this is ON-WIKIPEDIA evidence. Not convinced? (1) "Tag-team edit-warring" by user:Dangerous-Boy, user:Bakasuprman, user:AMbroodEY on behalf of user:Rumpelstiltskin223 (sockpuppet of Hkelkar) - [7], Dangerous-Boy helps his blocked friend Baka fight Anwar; please note - the image in question was uploaded by a sock of Hkelkar. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 09:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And remember when I asked ArbCom to restrict Baka's editing? Not much chance of disruptive editing eh? (God, I can do this "I told you so" bit all day!) Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 10:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wonder why Nirav was so emotional considering this futile edit-warring and waste of Wikipedia's resources could have been prevented. Karma is inevitable. It just arrives late sometimes. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom has in their hands evidence that all three of the admins above recruited me at various points in time to do their dirty work. Ragib especially, too high and puissant to fight Pakistani vandals, had sent me a multitude of emails "strictly off the record" to do his bidding. DaGizza was begging me to push a pro-Sanskrit view on a page less than 2 days before Rama's original blocks. All I can see DaGizza, is that Dboy (while being crude) was correct in his description of you. The only thing I have no respect for is Rama's Arrow, I had discussed my edits. .4 reverts per day obviously shows a penchant for edit warring, as does being in agreement with consensus.Baka man 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen

I strongly and most urgently demand that arbitrator Blnguyen be recused from this case - he has proved here that he has been intimately involved with the case from the beginning. He has even gone as far as to accuse DaGizza of (1) inciting me to block and (2) asking others to revert-war for him - is this the conduct of an uninvolved, neutral arbitrator? It is clear that Blnguyen is compromised - it is inexcusable for him to have not come clean about this from the very beginning. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - (1) I am now convinced that Blnguyen's proposals have ulterior motives and are compromised, (2) DaGizza did not "incite" me into doing anything. For Blnguyen as an arbitrator to make allegations like this is completely revealing of his extended involvement. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your own emails to the arbcom show that you knew what Gizza was doing. You also told me you wanted me to arbitrate this case via email when I was offering to recuse..... but now you have changed your mind. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you revisit the facts of the case - (1) I had discussed this issue with DaGizza, but he never incited me to do anything, as you now allege. (2) No matter what any individual said or thought, You were obligated by policy and precedent to keep out of this case - you didn't do that, did you? Did I want you to arbitrate? The only thing I remember is you telling me to un-block Bakasuprman because you thought Hornplease and Haphar were doing BhaiSaab's bidding. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did ask me to arbitrate, and you used obscene language against other users frequently. You asked me what I thought privately, I told you. I never made any public statements about this and I am not obligated to recuse. I didn't say that Haphar and Hornplease were doing BhaiSaab's bidding. It's very obvious that Gizza was encouraging you and also very obvious that the block was never going to stand, and it was very obvious from Gizza's history that he was never going to block himself in those circumstances. I am well aware of what he has been doing. You emailed arbcom yourself that you knew Gizza was dealing with Hkelkar. We can see on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch that Gizza had before been involved in another project where he did not revert himself and presumedly wanted some other redblooded guys to revert the likes of Siddiqui for him.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me more, Mr. Biased and Involved Arbitrator :) I had told you simply this - I love Wikipedia, I work for Wikipedia. I hate all this subversion and cabal politics done by NHN and co. I struck against Bakasuprman and co. because what they were doing was killing Wikipedia. Yes I used obscene language - only profanity can express my true feelings towards these individuals and their actions. DaGizza never asked me to do anything, much less "incite" me. You make accusations on the case, you un-block Bakasuprman against ANI consensus and you acknowledge knowing of the e-mails that were exchanged - and you have the nerve to say you aren't obligated to recuse??? Yes, you have an obligation to recuse yourself - if you don't, you will have tarnished the integrity of ArbCom. Or do you not care about any values of Wikipedia anymore? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You told me all this after you started the arbcom. Everybody kept all these emails under the carpet until everyone tried to get each other brought down after this case started. You say that nobody is above the law, nobody can do NPA, yet here you are saying that you are allowed to swear at people. In your own emails you sent to arbcom, you offered another user amnesty if they would help you bring down others. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you offering yourself to be blcoked for your obsecnities? Or are defenders of Wikipedia above the law? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I talked to you about this was after I e-mailed Kirill Lokshin and Fred Bauder for the first time asking for guidance. You told me - don't block Bakasuprman because Haphar and Hornplease are working for BhaiSaab and only Baka can keep Islamists at bay. AMbroodEY was not the one talking to Hkelkar to "befriend Jewish editors;" AMbroodEY was not the one talking about how an admin can "troll and bully" others. If AMbroodEY had the decency to try and help stop all this nonsense, why should I hold it against him? Also amnesty??? This is not a trial, blockings are not punishments. And - e-mails are "private." I can use any kind of language I like. And I am a straight-shooter. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not the case, I didn't say anything say anything about Haphar or Hornplease or BhaiSaab before you blocked these guys. Talk about trolling and bullying, you want people blocked for 2 reverts per week and "troll", are you going to have yourself blocked for doing 3 per day and blocking your opponent and swearing? or are you above the law? Or are you allowed to have nukes and use them on others but they are not? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I was never involved in any sort of edit conflict with Haphar. We once had a protracted talk page exchange and a couple of jabs here and there (on talk pages) but we never actually conflicted on any content. Hornplease was not a friend of BhaiSaab, though both of them were friendly with Dbachmann, and served as marionettes in that regard. Hkelkar already had the support of Jewish editors while banned so guess who I was advising? Oh the editors not dumb enough to pull 8 00 3RR violations in one month, aka the users who are still editing wikipedia on that list who have not been subject to any arbcom sanction, or "legitimate users" if you will. What do I have to offer to Hkelkar? He is miles ahead of me in technological know-how, so he doesn't need my help to invade wiki with armies of socks.Baka man 02:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I exposed Baka and Anwar's edit-warring - the decision to block was made by un-involved, neutral admins. If you thought that something I allegedly did five months ago was a big sin, why didn't you say anything then? Now you expect others to condone edit-warring because the whistle-blower allegedly did something months ago that nobody complained about? And while we are talking about the "defenders of Wikipedia" - who gave you the right to undo a consensus blocking decision reached at ANI by un-involved admins? For what excuse - some alleged offense of mine that you didn't have the balls to talk to me about five months ago? I didn't hear a peep out of you or NHN, the people now accusing me of being a Satanic admin when I was supposedly abusing these tools. Only now that NHN's butt is on the line, that he feels the need to demonize me - how transparent. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment assumes that I have an objection to you reverting Szhaider. I certainly do not, that's why I didn't take any action. The problem was that the PakHub guys were inserting OR and NEO into those articles. You are free to revert them until the cows come home. If the article is improving then it is good enough for me. I do not run scared and say look "he reverted!" and automatically malign people because they reverted. I have reverted at rates higher than twice a week, so have you, so has Dbachmann, so has Zora, so has JFD whom you gave barnstar etc etc.... I did not recoil in shock and horror nor did you. But if you are yourself happy to revert, then you should not go and take the moral high ground against another user for reverting at 2 per week ( 0.28 per day) when at times you have been going at 3 per day for two or three days. There is no use in that block at all. There are many other users who have been going at even 1 per day and nothing happens, and here are two guys going at 0.28 per day and they are likely the first guys to be blocked for 0.28 per day, and that too for a week. If this is so horrible, are you going to block yourself for ten weeks for reverting at ten times higher frequency? I revert from time to time and I do not agree it is right to can people for this level of reverting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen - for the final time, THE BLOCKS WERE PLACED BY OTHER ADMINS AFTER A DISCUSSION ON ANI - 3 UN-INVOLVED ADMINS APPROVED THE DECISION. I don't care about your views on reverting, YOU DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO UN-DO CONSENSUS WITHOUT DISCUSSION OR COURTESY. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the unblocks. Good call Blnguyen -- Samir 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see full well that you feel you are above the law, unless you are volunteering for a ten week block. People can look at the blocking patterns and work out what is going on....Many times of RfA some guy will support a whole pile of people.....then another guy comes along and he moves the bar up much higher and opposes citing a new harsh criteria. It doesn't take much, for whatever reason to work out that the person's opinion is clouded in some way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Blnguyen - being an administrator, an arbitrator - how did you dare not do anything about all this, that you knew was going on? Why was it not you who blocked Bakasuprman and D-Boy? Why was it not you who stood up to ideological trolling? O Upholder of Wikipedia, where was your conscience when all these e-mails were being circulated through your inbox? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about this when you emailed the arbcom list with your own evidence, in which you note that you knew what Gizza was up to, yet you sit here saying the opposite. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also as for "NPOV", the only way to enforce it is to fix up articles. Heaps of Indians also moan about certain users' edits but I don't see them sticking up for any content dispute at all. Are you going to have them desysopped? The biggest thing that happened to NPOV on Indian articles was Zora and Nobleeagle leaving. Since then all the articles they patrolled have degenerated due to hodge podge of drive by edits and such. Nothing else matters when nobody is fixing articles. I could say that I did more cleanups and reverts on Indian articles than most of the Indians here, including the ones going on about NPOV. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal to desysopp me did nothing to provoke me against Blnguyen. It was your abuse of your position as an admin and arbitrator that was the final straw. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it was the proposal to desysop that caused the provocation. When I supported your desysop on the workshop page, you responded likewise with a rash of incivility on my talk page, that I removed as vandalism -- Samir 01:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it is quite rich for Rama to be talking about "ulterior motives", "neutrality", and "cleanliness". Blnguyen has blocked me before, if I supposedly was being a dastardly Hindu fundamentalist edit warrior I am sure he would have the Margaret Thatchers to tell me where I was allegedly wrong. Contrast this with our crusaders for neutrality intent on whining on WP:ANI when things don't go their way. Rama's Arrow = Mike Nifong.Baka man 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I strongly suggest Blnguyen be retained as admin for this case. This recent fracas has shown clearly that here is a admin who sees beyond the wool and is prepared to challenge his mates to uphold and enforce the integrity of Wikipedia policies. I think Rama's Arrow is now desperately seeking to eliminate all admins like Blnguyen who don't quite support his wayward lines of thought and action. Or is it because Blnguyen boldly pointed out the fake tags Rama's Arrow regularly jots down in the edit summary in the event of a block which he later uses as circular evidence for character assassination? Anwar 18:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because/even if an admin is privy to some information or simply well informed about a situation doesnt mean he/she is 'involved'. 'Involved' is when individuals lose all sight of objectivity and will go forum shopping to get their opponents blocked even when they themselves know full well that there is nothing there that warrants a block... which is what Rama did with the recent blocks of Baka and Anwar. Saying Blnguyen is 'involved', should be recused is the stupidest thing we've heard on this arbcom yet. Sarvagnya 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, given the above discussion, it will be a conflict of interest for Blnguyen to vote in any proposed decisions. --Ragib 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think Rama's Arrow is trolling him -- Samir 01:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one can't be the judge, and also be the plaintiff at the same time. The exchange above just shows that, and in real courts, no judge would be allowed to prosecute in such cases without a violation of professional ethics. This is not a real court, I admit, but if we are to pretend this Arbitration group has any trustworthiness, then we need to ensure the arbitrators, the "judges" who get to vote, are not involved themselves in any sides. --Ragib 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen is not involved. Knowledge of the issues beforehand does not constitute involvement. Frankly, the only issue here that requires arbitration intervention is the issue of Rama's Arrow choosing to disclose private information on ANI (real names, e-mail addresses, e-mail details) which is a breach of privacy of the most egregious kind. -- Samir 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An active interest in a case does not mean involvement. RA has systematically depleted the patience of the whole community. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word.--D-Boy 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final statement

Believe it or not, I do not want to create any further confusion or delays - this is my final, last-ever statement on this case. Arbitrators - this is all up to you. As I have said countless times, I am an honest cop - I love Wikipedia and I did whatever I had to do to preserve WP:NPOV and stop the off-wiki subversion of this policy. You have all the evidence and you have had more than a month to go over all the information. The following is what I stand for:

Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy and Sbhushan must be blocked for off-wiki collusion and meatpuppetry with Hkelkar. When Bakasuprman advised Hkelkar and the mailing list to "befriend Jewish editors," "make yourself indispensable" and "cover your tracks," he was not talking about improving the encyclopedia. These charges were substantiated by their tag-team edit-warring on Godhra Train Burning, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and other articles with Hkelkar's sockpuppets.
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington abused his position as an administrator by encouraging meatpuppetry and Hkelkar's sockpuppetry. This is seen in his haste to overrule ANI consensus on the blockings of the trio and his malicious fabricated charges of supposed abuse of adminship on my part - this was his natural strategy: no real response for the real issue, so rake fictitious muck on me.
Blnguyen should have recused himself for having prior knowledge and involvement about all this, as his recent comments and interference prove. He has also abused his position as an administrator and arbitrator. This is seen in his un-blocking of Bakasuprman and Anwar saadat against ANI consensus and without any consultation with the 3 administrators who approved the blocking.

I love Wikipedia - I work for Wikipedia. Whether I have the delete, rollback, block buttons, I will keep working for Wikipedia. My heart is pure - I have done my duty. And if you're not down with that, well, I have only 2 words in response :) Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No, you emailed me along with the rest of the arbcom when this thing started. Nobody gave me any proper evidence that anything was going on. Of course, everybody knew that there were rumours that people were emailing each other, but no more evidence than against any other guy. If you think that team revert-warring by itself proves anything, then judging by doosra, you and Gizza are involved with Rumpelstiltskin the Hkelkar sock.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're an honest cop. I think you're a foul-mouthed person who is intent on picking on everyone else. Your behaviour during the RfAr has been despicable. You have cursed everyone out, blocked out of process, maligned arbitrators, threatened people in e-mails, cursed me out in e-mails, and in short have acted entirely with malice toward WP:CIV. Is that an honest cop? No way in the world. To say that you love Wikipedia, and then act like you have acted is the grossest of hypocrisy. Your behaviour is hurting the process of building the encyclopedia and not helping it in the least. That you don't understand this boggles the mind. -- Samir 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RA, your final statement is all fine and dandy, but remember that you are involved in this case. You are responsible for some misdeeds as well, and you know it. Also, Samir's totally right. You've been an "utter ass" to everyone who has vocally spoken out against you. You have not handled the situation in a professional manner, and you have resorted to namecalling to intimidate others who are against you. That is definitely not the way to handle yourself, especially in front of the Arbitration Committee, and I strongly admonish you for your behavior throughout this case. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - for the past two months, I've been harassed 24x7 with accusations of being a liar, master forger, maligner, fool, fundamentalist, incompetent, abusive admin, hypocrite... And I am the "foul-mouthed," "utter ass?" When I am faced with 6 bloodthirsty trolls who shamelessly lie and attack my character, with nobody reading them the riot act the way it is read to me every minute, I decide to do some straight-shooting. When Samir and Blnguyen - two people to whom I had vented my feelings and explained my motives, decide I'm the evil influence, I feel a bit angry. I only wish Samir and Nishkid64 had the integrity to confront the 3 trolls, Konstable and others (including 2 arbitrators) who have done everything but insult my family. All this on an encyclopedia, all this for trying to stick up for WP:NPOV and enforcing Wikipedia's policies - tut, tut... Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not comment on my integrity. Ever. Do so again and I will ask that you be blocked for personal attacks -- Samir 02:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samir is a doctor who saves lives. Nirav is a kid who likes wrestling. I think I know who has the integrity. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for you RA. You tried to emulate Rama but in the end you became Ravana. You were once one of the heavenly lords of Hindu/Indian Wikipedia as high as Bhadani. But now...you have fallen from heaven. That is what makes me weep. To see you used like this. You have been played and yet you stil do not realize it. RA, you have been used by your clique (I dare not say "cabal"). I've already outlined this in the timeless work titled nex of res publica. You ask why no one stopped you from blocking the paks. It is blatently obvious. No one liked them including dab and especially Dagizza. They hated them more than they hated the accused. The paks sodomized Dagizza's vision of WP:NPOV. This is something he could not tolerate at any cost. But Blnguyen is correct in is observations of Dagizza. Dagizza does not have the courage to openly do battle on the field. The man needed a soldier. Dagizza seduced you like Draupadi seducing Bhima for the kill. He knew you depised Sir Nick and took advantage of it. With the paks out of the way. Dagizza decided to betray his once trusted comrades. Using your blind righteousness, he manipulated you. While you bear the wrath of arbs, admins, and editors of wiki, Dagizza escapes, laughs at your brashness, and plans to manipulate another day. Ask yourself, what are you left with after this. Rumors are abound that wikia will desyop you. You've alienated your friends by acting in an unprofesional manner. Heaven has smite you. There is only one way for you at least to have salvation and satifaction before you leave. You must turn over Dagizza. You say you love Wikipedia above all else. Do what needs to be done. Turn over all your evidence and dealings that you have Dagizza. Show the people that he was behind everything and you will at least have their love before you go. He did not have the courage that you have. He was never a soldier of Rome. Honor him! the Heavens will reward you.

P.S. I recommend you read the Prince and Hardball by Chris Matthews.--D-Boy 02:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to arbitrators - here is one person calling me a foul-mouthed troll and threatening me if I comment on his integrity. Here is another giving me a discourse in Hindu myth and Roman history, with the point being that DaGizza is the evil responsible for all this. I don't have to say anything more - these gentlemen speak for themselves. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I love a good humorous quote by Dboy. Speaking of myths, I remember this one urban myth about Hkelkar recruiting acolytes on Hindutva forums and using legitimate users to do his bidding.Baka man 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I documented in my evidence, which nobody, including it appears the arbitators, read, Hkelkar did in fact state as much, on-wiki. And to you, I think. Hornplease 19:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break: Rama's arrow is incivil

Yes, I speak for myself. Here is a list of your choice epithets from the past 24 hours:

Statement by the Clerk

Once again the level of user behavior on this arbitration page has become deplorable. To preserve the appearance of impartiality and because editors generally must be able to express themselves on arbitration pages, it is not my general practice to block editors who engage in inappropriate comments on the pages I am clerking, but I am totally out of patience. All parties and non-party editors are emphatically instructed that there will be an immediate and definitive end to any more personal attacks, incivil remarks, and harassment on any pages related to this case. Any uninvolved administrator is requested to take appropriate action in the event of non-compliance. Further, to put an end to the need for the parties to interact on these pages, the arbitrators are respectfully urged to expedite and conclude the voting process in this case. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the most recent behavior calls for more sanctions than previously considered. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when is this arb going to be over?--D-Boy 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Rama's Arrow has requested that he be desysopped (and he has been desysopped accordingly). -- tariqabjotu 03:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's also left wikipedia !!.From "Section break: Rama's arrow is incivil" headline, his behaviour was more disruptive and incivil than I thought.--NAHID 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Discussions

Now that the air of civility is beginning to arrive, are there any issues that we can discuss here?Baka man 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! When are you vanishing, as you promised? Hornplease 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for the air of civility. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hornplease, I kindly and politely ask that you refrain from making such provacative and terse statements.--D-Boy 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am constrained to endorse the views of D-Boy. --Bhadani (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse away. I haven't participated in the viciousness above, or elsewhere in this RfArb, which all of you have waded into, it appears. My only question was whether the above editors' repeated remarks that he was 'out of here' were rhetorical flourishes. That's it. This is relevant, as otherwise I will have to start gathering evidence for another RfArb, as the arbitrators have clearly chosen to ignore on-wiki evidence for this one, presumably because everyone is so busy insulting each other in ways considerably more provocative than I could manage in a month of Sundays. Hornplease 05:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the evidence used to implicate any good deeds/wrongdoing is all on-wiki. See Admin actions and contributions. The arbitrators clearly chose to painstakingly investigate through copious emails, block logs, and past cases to come to a few choice proposals meant to stabilize the state of entropy that the Indian/Hinduism pages have fallen into. Many of them have done so taking a beating on online off-wiki forums, where people like Nadirali (talk · contribs), His excellency (talk · contribs) and Kuntan (talk · contribs) (very strange bedfellows) continually harass them and threaten them.Baka man 16:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what 'stabilise the state of entropy' means in this context.The rest is neither here nor there. I maintain that evidence of tendentiousness has clearly not been considered. Which is why I asked: weren't you vanishing? As I said, it is relevant. Hornplease 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will be engaging in dispute resolution after this. I have a lot to say. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to further dispute resolution. This has been profoundly unsatisfactory, and I say that as someone who has mainly observed rather than participated. Hornplease 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You rock! \m/>_<\m/--D-Boy 03:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article about email privacy

E-mail Privacy Gets a Win in Court --D-Boy 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

[8] [9]. What are the arbitrators opinion on this? I don't want to accuse Bakaman of anything for the moment but this is an interesting observation. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, HK is still active!!! --Ragib 05:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse - he is now evading checkuser!! The signature gave him away, and so does his pattern of edits. --Ragib 05:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He managed to evade checkuser with his Rumpel sock for a while. I don't remember how we caught him in the end. Perhaps Akash knows. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is Kuntan, and he is abusing Wikipedia again. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its His excellency (talk · contribs).Baka man 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a pressing issue, I would like to invite all of you to this discussion on the impersonation of Hkelkar at ANI.Baka man 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin actions barred, part II

Since Rama's Arrow has got his account desysoped, there is no urgent need for barring admin actions between parties, esp. when I have also been included as an involved party and do not have any previous record or disruptive pattern of blocking users while being in dispute over article content. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want him coming back 5 days later saying he wants his tools back though.--D-Boy 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin actions barred, part III

I direct the arbitrators, if any are still interested in this, to the actions recently taken by Sir Nicholas and discussed here. Hornplease 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh anwar was vandalizing hindu articles out of extreme prejudice. Hornplease, I recommend a wikibreak for you. You get extremely worked up. Stay healthy, hornplease and best of luck to you in life.--D-Boy 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar saadat has a rather long history of stalking users.Baka man 01:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? There are better users who stalk other users and call them trolls, etc. Bakajee, if you want to continue in wikipedia, my suggestion is that you, me and many others have to bear with all these funny aspects of wikipedia. Please forget Anwar saadat and please continue to add value to wikipedia. --Bhadani (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I continue to, just as you wish. However, I enjoy editing controversial things. Making pages like 2007 Lal Masjid clashes and other controversial events are what I like to edit. I do not enjoy people attacking me simply because of views that I may/may not profess. However I will try to work in the framework of your statement, as you are a wikipedian who I respect.Baka man 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baka, if you do not enjoy people attacking you, might I suggest:

a. not attacking others

b. not editing controversial things

JFD 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I directed the adminstrator's attention to Sir Nick's actions, not to Anwar Saadat's. Can we stay on topic please? Hornplease 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFD, might I suggest:

a. leave baka alone

b. do not edit controverial things as well

Anwar is the topic. you was continuing harmful actions that have affected the project. zai jin.--D-Boy 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the topic is whether it's appropriate for an admin to unblock Baka when that both that admin and Baka are listed as involved parties in the same Arbitration, especially when it violates the spirit of one of the proposed remedies. Alvida. JFD 00:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems really strange that some of us (that may include me too at times) have the habit of making mountain out of the molehill. In my opinion, we should inculcate the feeling of detachment to the extent possible to controversial comments, and focus on the task of building the project. Such activities really waste a lot of time and resources as people get de-motivated to be around and productive. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin actions barred, part IV

In light of recent events, I request that the Arbitrators address the unblocking of like-minded parties.

Admin actions between parties barred
4) As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves.

As currently written, this proposed remedy addresses only admins blocking parties with whom they are in conflict; the recent unblocking of one party to this case by another violates the spirit of the same principle. I therefore ask the Arbitrators to address this.

I understand if the Arbitrators just want to close this case and be done with it. However, I hope they consider the implications of failing to close this loophole. What it means is that, in future, whenever some axe-grinder in a conflict gets blocked, all he has to do is appeal to a like-minded admin who shares the same national, religious, or ideological affinity to unblock him. Turning a blind eye to this loophole would allow an avenue by which Wikipedia could be turned into a battleground to go—if you'll forgive the choice of words—unblocked. Ugly and disruptive edit-warring would escalate into uglier and even more disruptive wheel-warring. JFD 02:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two wikipedias. One for soft articles with little controversy, and the wikipedia of controversy. Every block undertaken on wiki (exceptions are SPA trolls, vandalism, the non-controversial stuff) is the result of ideological wrangling. Moreschi is nothing more than an acolyte of Akhlilleus who is carrying out the bidding of Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs). Just because Nick is Indian does not disqualify him from righting an unwarranted misuse of admin privileges. Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) was not censured by arbcom for using his Islamophobic prejudices to block Paistani users. Therefore, Nick's unblocking is completely warranted. Btw, why the noise JFD? Are you really neutral and concerned? Your actions on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies indicate you are using this as another opportunity to go after Indian users. You are using wiki as a battleground right now. Why were you so interested in this incident? Its not like you dont have an axe to grind here.Baka man 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakaman,

I had no interest in the original Kelkar arbitration.

I only got involved because you asked me to.[10]

So your objection now—for the exact same thing you asked me to do then—rings more than a little hollow.

As for your "two wikipedias" thesis, the problem is that Kelkaristas take "soft" articles—even articles that have little or nothing to do with India—and make them part of "the wikipedia of controversy".

JFD 05:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may think there are two wikipedias, but the same rules of conduct apply on both. Trying to paint all participants in politically fraught articles as equally cynical and disruptive of the encyclopaedia is an understandable tactic given your history on WP, but is as misleading as most of the stuff you put on here.

I return to the central point: Does Sir Nicholas' recent unblocking violate the mandate of the ArbCom? No amount of blustering should erase that simple request for information. Hornplease 04:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi is my "acolyte"? I'm "carrying out the bidding of Rama's Arrow"? These wild accusations, while amusing, are hardly civil. And you are (perhaps deliberately) misunderstanding the reasons why there are complaints about Sir Nick's unblock of you--it's not because of ethnicity, it's because 1) he unblocked without discussion and 2) he's involved in this very arbitration case, on your "side", which is an obvious conflict of interest. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFD, this remedy is a specific reminder to the parties in this case to get another administrator to take action. There is no loophole. The Arbitration Committee has gone on record numerous times saying that wheel warring is not acceptable and that discussion needs to precede undoing another administrators actions. FloNight 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. JFD 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are we supposed to do about this, then? It sure looks like a violation of the remedy: one of the parties in this case unblocked another. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the "Admin actions between parties barred/Summary desysopping" thing. Is this permanent or will it expire ? Tintin 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the solution that will solve everyone's problem. First, hornplease can stop removing cats biasly. Second, both hornplease and JFD can stop stalking baka. I don't think Akilleus is that much of a problem. He's usually civil. Third, close the RFA. Rama is gone and the RFA has gone on for long enough. Also, if someone could stop Anwar from vandalizing Hindu articles as he like do, that would be a big help. I hope we can all rectify this situation calmly, amicably, and happily.--D-Boy 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it comforting that, as ugly as this case has gotten, the arbitrators are still willing to take the time to make their intentions clear where they might have been left unclear. Just imagine how disruptive it would be if admin powers ever fell into the hands of a hot-headed, impetuous Kelkarista. The members of Clan Kelkar would be able to troll and bully confident that they had an admin in their corner to block, unblock, protect or unprotect at their pleasure. Heaven forbid that ever happen. JFD 17:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

word.--D-Boy 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

This is a question, it says "summarily desysoped" as the enforcement here. Does that mean they're allowed to reapply via the normal methods or contacting ArbCom, or are barred from reapplying for their remainder of their stay on WP? Just a little concern I have, nothing major. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be addressed at the time of such (hopefully never-to-occur) "summary desysopping," but the general practice is that a desysopped administrator is free to reapply either through a new RfA or by appeal to the arbitrators at any time, unless the decision states otherwise. Newyorkbrad 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Newyorkbrad's reply. FloNight 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just wanted to make sure. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]