Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:37, 16 November 2006

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Bakasuprman

TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs) Labels Users

Here's some diffs to back it up. "fascist" and "fascist 2" and paid agent of the RSS. He also tried to mob me by posting messages on the Muslim Guild about Active hindutvavadis. He also asked USer:Nobleeagle if nobleeagle was "doing a PR for Gujarat government,Narendra Modi and Hindutva organisations". Its also funny how TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs) uses Hindutva as an insult. Hindutva = Hindu Tattva= Being Hindu . Is being a Hindu now fascism ? ArbCom please give me an answer, I would really like to know. If there are, there are 1 billion fascists around the world.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) has anti-Semitic views

As User:Hkelkar is Jewish, this warrants some discussion. User:Samir (The Scope) has found at least three instances of anti-Semitic views expressed. One is where he states Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (holocaust denier) is an awesome guy on the MedCab page. The next day he decided he needed to get it into Hkelkar's head that he thinks Ahmadinejad is awesome. He also said Israel shouldn't be on a map and Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the US. He also called Zionists terrorists. If one looks at the pages Holocaust denial and new anti-Semitism a person could see that BhaiSaab's remarks would have been highly unfortunate anyways, and given the fact that Hkelkar is Jewish, they are downright unacceptable.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - I found an interesting discussion between BhaiSaab and another Jewish user on User_talk:BhaiSaab#Criticism and User_talk:Dev920#Islam_2 . Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs)'s early trolling

My unfortunate run-in with this user occurred at the now notorious "Fundy Watch" Afd. At that time I was a very new editor, not knowing the rules/tricks/etc. of Misplaced Pages. After the AfD, he began to harrass all the Hindu editors (myself, Shiva's trident, and Dboy). It started when him and another user (Timothy Usher (talk · contribs) inactive on wikipedia) tried to get Dboy booked for "Spam solicitation" also . While looking for a page to stamp his POV over, he found Indian caste system. There he vandalized the section on the Muslim caste system under the canard of copyright . While I was reporting him to 3RR here, I was blocked under the canard of "Copyvio" by a solicitation from BS . Then while I was reeling from the first block in bad faith, he decided to get one of his "Fundy Watch" friends to block me. This was an expression of amazing bad faith. After that Blnguyen (talk · contribs) stepped in, and ended the nonsense. BhaiSaab and Ikonoblast (talk · contribs) (nee Holywarrior) formed a cabal against me . And an RFC was filed against me (a copy of which can be found at USer:Bakasuprman/Rfcopy), where consensus supported me against the filer of the RFC, found to have been acting in bad faith. If one refers to USer talk:Blnguyen and numerous archives, they will see the immense amount of baiting and nonsesne we had to deal with. During early august, the diifs are so numerous that its better to merely show logs of his "contributions" here and here. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Responses

To TwoHorned (talk · contribs)

Sadly Bharatveer and Hkelkar rarely interact, though I have worked with Bharatveer from time to time, and requested his input on things like Hindu Temples in Kerala, the Kerala School, Bindi, Tagore, etc.

I guess TwoHorned was so busy caught up in feeling important he forgot that I have not edited the Koenraad Elst page after we worked out a compromise during negotiations., and my response here.

I have not interacted with the user above since then. As for his other issue with my edit count, I wish to see what he shows for 5 months on the 'pedia as opposed to my 3.5 months in which I have over 60+ articles created, 20+ categories created, and 8 DYK's. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - There was no pattern, it was an isolated incident of laziness on my part. I should have responded to your whimsical nonsense in a numbered list though. I signed my edits on each line I edited.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To Hornplease (talk · contribs)

Nothing to say, except his view is a fringe view, rejected by a majority of wikipedians I have interacted with. I have no anti-Islamic bias, as is stated by Ragib (talk · contribs) and by my interactions with SameerKhan (talk · contribs) and Tarif Ezaz (talk · contribs).

Anyway there are a large number of users that disagree with Hornplease including (read the statements section): nids, AmbroodEY, Nobleeagle, Hkelkar, Shiva's Trident, and Dangerous-Boy.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To Xiaopo (talk · contribs)

On the subject of revert happy, one may consult Crculver's block log (which includes many blocks for 3RR). If I was revert happy, why have I not been blocked for 3RR ever? Also, why have I not been blocked since the one-month span? Maybe its because I got over my past, and worked to build the encyclopedia unlike a large group of users whose only edits seem to have come on the arbcom page.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:BhaiSaab

Hkelkar is a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer

Context

I'd like to note that the reason I feel sockpuppetry is important here, even after Shiva's Trident has become inactive, is that because if it is true, then Hkelkar has been lying for about two months. This says something, then, of his other edits. I think I had quite a lot of evidence for this in my statement. I realize now that I wasn't supposed to do that, but I'll recap some of it here. As you can see from the sockpuppetry case linked in my statement, I have suspected Hkelkar of being a sockpuppet since his first day here, and as Blnguyen or Hkelkar can tell you, I have always believed that he is a sockpuppet. I believe it was the fault of several admins in refusing to acknowledge the obvious, and it took two entire months to finally ban one of the accounts, thanks to action taken by admin Dmcdevit and admin Aksi great. Admin Blnguyen, who has been involved with these "Indian" disputes for a signficant amount of time, did not believe Hkelkar was a sockpuppet until admin Aksi great showed him his own evidence towards the end of October or beginning of November.

Evidence of Sockpuppetry

Here is some information that I have not previously mentioned:

1. Looking at the history of the talk page of (User_talk:Bakasuprman), it is clear that two users have consistently requested the help of Bakasuprman when they have found themselves to be in conflict with other users. In particular, I found the similarity between these two solicitations interesting: , .
2. Both of their interactions with users such as User:Ikonoblast aka Holywarrior, myself, TerryJ-Ho, User:Haphar, and other editors have been quite similar as evidenced by the conversations taken place on each of the respective users talk pages.
3. Both users have frequently use popups to revert the non-vandalistic edits of users that they are having content disputes with. See their contributions as this is commonly done by both of them.
4. During their extended blocks, both users have typed "to-do" notes for themselves: . Although I have seen one or two editors do the same, this practice is not quite common.
5. A quick overview of their contributions shows that Hkelkar has generally edited the very same or similar articles as Subhash bose.
6. They have both used the logic of Venn diagrams in their arguments. See this sockpuppetry case and a discussion regarding myself on ANI.
7. They show the same general attitude toward major religions and tend to make favorable edits for Hinduism and Judaism, while making negative edits for Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism, although there have been some exceptions. This is a general pattern in their editing that cannot be easily shown by one or two diffs.
8. Both users exhibit a tendency to make the same specific typo when using conjunctions (e.g. "don't" is written as "don;t"). Some examples of these typos in their edit summaries include: , , , .

So now I'd like to recap some facts about this sockpuppetry, and for the sake of being non-repetitive, I'll omit the links that I have already provided above and in my statement:

1. Shiva's Trident had previously used User:Pusyamitra_Sunga as a sockpuppet, the account of which was banned.
2. Shiva's Trident's block began on August 21st. Hkelkar began editing on August 22nd during the other user's block.
3. Shiva's Trident has previously edited from User:128.83.131.121 and User:128.83.131.215 during his blocks. On August 22nd, Hkelkar began editing from User:128.83.131.139.
4. Per the University of Texas's website (linked in my statement), the computer or server that is on 128.83.131.139 is remotely accessible.
5. Hkelkar's first edit (by IP) was on Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy, a controversial article which Shiva's Trident had worked on as well just up to a few days prior to the IP's edit. The second article that Hkelkar edited was 2002 Gujarat violence on August 23rd, 2006. Shiva's Trident had last edited this article on August 21st.
6. User:128.83.131.215 was able to cite policy (using their shortcuts e.g. "WP:OR") from the very first day here. 128.83.131.215 issued his first warning to another user after less than three days on Misplaced Pages. This was done to User:Ikonoblast, who has had several heated discussions with Shiva's Trident in the past as evidenced by the talk page.
7. They both attend the University of Texas and study Physics (obviously).
8. Dmcdevit stated that shortly after the result of the checkuser he conducted in which he found that sockpuppetry was "likely" in this case, Shiva's Trident became increasingly inactive, and remains inactive till this day.
9. All of this is apparent, in addition to admin aksi great's evidence (Hkelkar had the same username as Subhash bose as found on a yahoo group posting). I assume this evidence will be forwarded privately by Dmcdevit to the arbcom.

Finally, I'd like to note a conversation between myself and Hkelkar in which he seemed to have forgotten which account he used to make a specific edit. In the article, 2002 Gujarat Violence, we can see that Shiva's Trident inserted a source, Ramesh Rao's blog, on August 19th. On November 4th, Hkelkar and I are debating another source, Sabrang, and I choose to bring up his insertion of the blog. I state "Couldn't I say the same thing of your insertion of statements from Ramesh Rao's blog?..." Hkelkar responds on my talk page, and forgets that it was actually the account Shiva's Trident who inserted the material. He says "I think you misunderstand. I am using Ramesh Rao's writeup as a PRIMARY source after qualifying that it is HE who said it..." If you look at the contribution history of the article, you'll find that Hkelkar has actually never inserted or used additional material from Ramesh Rao, nor has he ever "qualified that it is HE who said it..." in the article. Note further that I specifically used the word "insertion" to refer to Hkelkar's edits, to which he raised no objection at the time.

Hkelkar (and his other usernames) have been disruptive

I've decided to primarily dedicate this portion to Hkelkar's previous account, Shiva's Trident, as several other editors have already pointed out how Hkelkar has been disruptive with his new account. These are just a small selection of his many edits that contravene policy. Arbitrators should also note that Shiva's Trident was blocked all times except one under the username "Subhash bose" and the final time under "Shiva's Trident", so you'll only find one block if you look at the block log of "Shiva's Trident."

Incivility and personal attacks:

• Read my damn edits,
• Ahh. the sweet smell of fact distorters in the morning,
• I CITED TAXILA!!! IT IS CITED AND REFERENCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,
• Referring to "Muhammad" as a pedophile while addressing a Muslim user,
• All Muslims incite violence,
• Asking a Muslim "either convert them or kill them, right janaab?"
• Too bad, I'm back. Can;t stop the truth mein Freund. Even your Allah said so.
• I don't debate with people who worship with Nazi hitler-youth members like the Catholic pope either, so we're even
• It seems he wants to engage in Jihad on wikipedia.
• Anything to defame Hindus with balls, right?
• I'll bet you've been dancing on the streets of Allahabad together with muslims after they bombed our trains, right? You're the classic example of the self-hating Indian; who consorts with alien Mohammedians who'd cheerfully slit your throat at a moment's notice if their local mullah orders them to do so. Think about THAT and hang your head in shame!
• I'm watching you very carefully.
• Call your doctor, your intravenous drip needs adjusting
• Complaint from other user
• Also, do watch both articles as they seem to be his standard hangouts for soilings (in case I get blocked).
• ...and tons more. As you can see from his block log, his personal attacks did not stop anytime soon.

Removing sourced material: , ,

Wild accusations of anti-Semitism or anti-Hinduism: His complaint against another user, Look at RSS...

In addition to the copyvio mentioned by Bakaman, he plagiarized here. I later caught the infringing paragraph, after which Shiva's Trident reinserted it and later reworded it.

Responses to comments/evidence by other editors

Note: I have provided very little diffs in this section because the relevant pages have already been linked to by the parties to whom I am responding. When necessary, I have added links and/or diffs.

Response to Bakasuprman

This user has presented links for evidence but egregiously misrepresents them. I suggest the arbitrators take the time to read over the dialog we had over the copyvio material at Talk:Indian_caste_system#Vandalism in which Blnguyen established that I was correct about the text being a copyright violation. Bakasuprman in his reverts to reinsert the material probably assumed that I was lying about the copyvio and trying to blank the text defensively since I am a Muslim. As you can see on the talk page, Bakasuprman had said about my edit that I "used POV to delete the whole section on Muslim Caste System (He is a Muslim). I will copyedit and keep section due to this bias." He was later blocked per the clause on WP:Vand which states that repeatedly inserting copied text is vandalism. If you take the time to click through his links for his accusations of "cabals" etc., I think you'll find that they paint a different picture. Note that if you go through my contributions you'll find that I did not contribute a single edit to the RFC filed against Bakasuprman. You should further note that the mentioned ""Fundy Watch" friend" is none other than admin Tom Harrison. I'd like to say that in general I think Bakasuprman is sometimes a good editor, but he assumed bad faith of me in the "copyvio case" because of my religion, got in trouble for that, and still seems to be quite upset about it.

Response to CltFn

I would like the arbitrators to consider this user's neutrality in his comments about me, considering it was I that who established that this user had been using a sockpuppet for several months. I don't think I need to defend myself against any individual allegations from this user since no evidence has yet been provided.

Response to Hkelkar

This is a response to these accusations. The numbers of each response corresponds with the number of the accusation

1. Comment's regarding anti-Semitism are below. I'm sure Blnguyen now realizes that Hkelkar is not Jewish.
2. Shiva's Trident was blocked indefinitely a few days later - hardly a "dead horse."
3. I have continuously accused Hkelkar of being a sockpuppet since his first day here. I stand by my actions, especially now that Shiva's Trident is indefinitely blocked.
4. A discussion regarding the edits on Indian caste system took place here. Hkelkar is currently using the text of a fatwa to say that the fatwas established a caste system among Muslims in India, despite me showing three sources that contradict this. He has provided no other evidence of the impact of the fatwa other than the text of the fatwa itself. I encourage you to read the discussion on the talk page and evaluate who's misrepresenting what.
5. See 4.
6. See 4.
7. See 4.
8. No comment.
9. Hkelkar fails to understand that I have, by default, always assumed bad faith of him. Why? Because sockpuppetry and lying, which he continues to do in this very arbcom case, are indicative of bad faith. It was the fault of the admins in failing to recognize the sockpuppetry for two months. I have only taken some of his edits in good faith when they were apparent in not showing bad faith.
10. Hkelkar(under Shiva's Trident name) and Baksuprman took offense at the "in addition to maintaining offensive activities" clause in the RSS article. This was explicitly stated in the journal source that I used, the Far Eastern Survey, but for whatever reason they wished to censor the clause. This was disruptive both on the parts of Hkelkar and Bakasuprman.
11. This is a repeat of number 8.
12. Regarding Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations, those edits were in fact supported by a consensus formed on the talk page of CAIR (here and here). CltFn was the exception to the consensus, and therefore wanted to ignore it by merging the criticism with the original article.
13. Regarding Craig Winn, I don't think I need to justify removing an enormous list of links within the text of an article. When it comes to him being self-published, see Mr. Darcy's statement on the talk page of the article.

Allegations of anti-Semitism

I have a strong dislike for Israel, and am not inclined to hide my feelings on the activities of that country. Its oppression of Palestinian civilians disgusts me. However, I have no hatred for Jews, and love Jews that equally dislike Israel, as I've stated several times. Hkelkar is in fact a Hindu, as you can see from the userboxes on the past revisions of User:Shiva's Trident user page. When I was making the "Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place" and other statements, Blnguyen at the time refused to acknowledge that Hkelkar was a sockpuppet, and he blocked me because he perceived my statements to be directed at a Jewish user. I knew however that my statements were being pasted on the talk page of a Hindu, and I didn't find anything inherently wrong with them. Had Blnguyen known that Hkelkar and Shiva's Trident were the same person as he acknowledges now, I don't feel that I would have been blocked. On the ANI discussion regarding this indcident, several users had commented that Hkelkar's statements were equally provocative, but for whatever reason, Blnguyen took no action against Hkelkar at the time.

Hkelkar's response below seems to be reading into my statements a little too much. "Leeching" is a general negative term - I would use the term against anything I dislike and Israel or Jews certainly do not hold any particular claim to the word as used by anti-Semites. When I said "Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place" I mean the state, as I am aware that there have been tribes of Jews living in the area for quite a long time even before the existence of the current state of Israel. Hkelkar is making his own inference here to imply that I mean "the people of Israel" shouldn't be on the map. One can read into my statements as much as they like - that doesn't mean their interpretations will be correct. So let me clarify my position here with some oversimplified logic: If you happen to support Israel's actions against Palestinians, I don't particularly like you. If you happen to be Jewish and you criticize Israel (as many Jews within Israel do), I like you. If you happen to be Jewish, and you support what Israel does to Palestinians, I don't like you. If you happen to be a Muslim and you support those actions of Israel, I don't like you the same.

Apparently you like me, but saying Israel should not be on the map was quite provocative. Fred Bauder 22:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Hkelkar

Response to accusations of sockpuppetry

I've already gone over this matter in the RFCU filed against me here. However, I will summarize my points and add some more.

• Statement made above

"Looking at the history of the talk page of (User_talk:Bakasuprman), it is clear that two users have consistently requested the help of Bakasuprman when they have found themselves to be in conflict with other users. In particular, I found the similarity between these two solicitations interesting: , "

My response:The similarity is circumstantial at best.Actually, I never denied that I knew Trident and that we converse(d) frequently off wikipedia about wikipedia articles. He was not doing so well with trying to clear them of bias and that's when I stepped in to help.I solicited Bakaman's help on the recommendation of Trident.

• Statement made above

"Both of their interactions with users such as User:Ikonoblast aka Holywarrior, myself, TerryJ-Ho, User:Haphar, and other editors have been quite similar as evidenced by the conversations taken place on each of the respective users talk pages"

My response:I have barely interacted with this User:Haphar (I may have corresponded with him months ago, but not since then). I do observe, that Trident and haphar have had considerable arguments.Of course, Ikonoblast and TerryJ-Ho are pattern disruptors who run around India related articles and fill them with nonsense. I only clean up after them. I will post my evidence concerning this below.

• Statement made above

"Both users have frequently use popups to revert the non-vandalistic edits of users that they are having content disputes with. See their contributions as this is commonly done by both of them."

My response: A bad practice that I stopped after I learned that you were not supposed to use popups except for vandalism

• Statements made above

"During their extended blocks, both users have typed "to-do" notes for themselves: . Although I have seen one or two editors do the same, this practice is not quite common."

My response:Like BhaiSaab said, several editors do this, including trident. I saw him do it, thought it was a rather neat idea, and adopted it myself.

• Statement made above

"A quick overview of their contributions shows that Hkelkar has generally edited the very same or similar articles as Subhash bose."

My response: Like I said, this is the case because Trident intimated to me that these articles were in bad shape and I tried to improve them.

• Statement made above:

"They have both used the logic of Venn diagrams in their arguments."

My response:This is the best BhaiSaab can do? We both use Venn Diagrams so we must be the same person???Both Ariel Sharon and I breathe oxygen. Are we the same person? Both Steven Weinberg and I use Venn Diagrams to present our arguments (attend his cosmology class at UT Austin sometime). We even go to the same department and University.Are Stephen Weinberg and I the same person? I urge the admins to see the obvious, that BhaiSaab clearly has no case and is trying to prejudice you with circumstantial events.

• Statement made above

"They show the same general attitude toward major religions and tend to make favorable edits for Hinduism and Judaism, while making negative edits for Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism, although there have been some exceptions. This is a general pattern in their editing that cannot be easily shown by one or two diffs"

My response:Like I said, all this establishes is that we have similar points of view, which I never denied.Besides, I would not characterize my edits as "negative for Islam". That is really the reason why BhaiSaab is carrying out his little crusade.He's angry that I wrote about some dirty littel secrets among Muslims, like the Muslim Castes, which he tried to whitewash and instigated an edit-war there (I'll post more diffs about this later). He plans to get me banned and delete that section once the article get's unprotected. Such practices are quite common for him and can be seen from his contribs.

• Statement made above

"Shiva's Trident had previously used User:Pusyamitra_Sunga as a sockpuppet, the account of which was banned."

My response:I do not know anything about this matter.

• Statement made above

"Shiva's Trident's block began on August 21st. Hkelkar began editing on August 22nd."

My response:Because Trident told me to.

• Statements made above

"They both attend the University of Texas and study Physics (obviously)."

My response: A fact that I have never denied.

• Statements made above

"Dmcdevit stated that shortly after the result of the checkuser he conducted in which he found that sockpuppetry was "likely" in this case, Shiva's Trident became increasingly inactive, and remains inactive till this day"

My response: I told him to steer clear of wikipedia for a while as he was increasingly getting busy and I less so. He is a theorist and I an experimentalist. Theory people do little work during the summer and mostly work in the long sessions (that's now). I worked a lot in the summer on my experiment, which gave results and I wrote my paper.I now have some time to edit and he doesn't (though I will get busy with the next phase of my work soon). Nonetheless, he wanted to do some editing but I told him to keep off and intimate any interesting articles he saw to me.

I would like to point out that I raised these issues earlier in the RFCU discussion page (which I link here). I will quote from there now:

Link:Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar

I would also like for you to look at admin User:Blnguyen's assessment here

and the assessments of User:Dbachmann here Now look at BhaiSaab's response , clearly indicating that he is getting increasingly desperate to sway opinions against me. This puts his objectivity in question.

and that of User:Ben W Bell (in a conversation with User:Ikonoblast) here

• Statement made above:

"Both users exhibit a tendency to make the same specific typo when using conjuctions (e.g. don't is written as "don;t"). Some examples of these typos in their edit summaries include"

My response:An interesting observation.Such typos are not uncommon to many posters on the internet (see any number of slashdot posts where such typos occur routinely, I guess nearly half of them must be my sockpuppets).If you look at your standard QWERTY keyboard (not the DVORAK keybpard), you will see that the apostrophe key and the semicolon key are side by side. OTher common typos that Trident and I (and a hundred million users on the internet) have in common is typing "teh" instead of "the" (see Internet Slang). Let's ban them all from wikipedia, praise G-d. Or how about you don;t whoops don't?

Hkelkar 06:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Statement made above

"Finally, I'd like to note a conversation between myself and Hkelkar in which he seemed to have forgotten which account he used to make a specific edit. In the article, 2002 Gujarat Violence, we can see that Shiva's Trident inserted a source, Ramesh Rao's blog, on August 19th. On November 4th, Hkelkar and I are debating another source, Sabrang, and I choose to bring up his insertion of the blog. I state "Couldn't I say the same thing of your insertion of statements from Ramesh Rao's blog?..." Hkelkar responds on my talk page, and forgets that it was actually the account Shiva's Trident who inserted the material. He says "I think you misunderstand. I am using Ramesh Rao's writeup as a PRIMARY source after qualifying that it is HE who said it..." If you look at the contribution history of the article, you'll find that Hkelkar has actually never inserted or used additional material from Ramesh Rao, nor has he ever "qualified that it is HE who said it..." in the article. Nowhere in his response to me does Hkelkar state "I did not insert the blog; Shiva's Trident did."

My response:Carefully look at my statement. I said "I am USING the blog" i.e. as part of my argument after Trident put it there and I read it.Did I say that I cited the blog? I did not, Trident did. Why is it necessary for me to mention who put it there first? I am certainly not required to qualify the edit history of every edit made to an article during my discussion. Again, another lame attempt by Bhaisaab to deliberately skew circumstantial incidents. Anybody can do that against anybody. If I was actually Trident, and I goofed up my "nefarious scheme", I would have said "I cited the blog" but I didn't did I? Of course, the truly paranoid can use a double-double deception argument, but I am working on the good faith assumption that Arbcomm isn't populated by tinfoil hat wearing 10 year olds.

Conclusion:Most of this so-called evidence is circumstantial. I have explained why the technical information in the checkuser case was misleading, and the fact that we hail from the same school. have similar backgrounds and often discuss wikipedia matters with each other, which is why I advised him to step back for a while so that nobody can say we're "meatpuppets" or whatever. I have also demonstrated BhaiSaab's real reasons for this RFCU (so that he may have free run to whitewash articles on Muslims). Finally, there have been no edits from Trident in months, which makes the sockpuppetry charge moot. I point you to Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets where it says:

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Trident is my sockpuppet, there has been little or no activity on that account for months (see contribs), and his last edit to an article appears to be on September 3, 2.5 months ago (he's indefblocked now, but that happened on 29th october, 2 weeks ago thanks to Dcmdevit's biased conclusion made largely in bad faith and with extreme malice on his part, for which I opine that he should be summarily desysopped, but I will raise that matter at another time).Therefore, assuming that we are sockpuppets, there have been no abuse, block evasion or any impropriety in months. The policy statement above clearly indicates that there is a precept of reasonable statute in wikipedia policy which is surely less than two months. Since, in the absense of abuse or block/ban evasion, sockpuppetry isn;t illegal, then the issue is moot. This matter has nothing to do with sockpuppetry at all, but is a personal crusade against me by BhaiSaab, who has been misrepresenting sources and whitewashing many article for months before Trident noticed it and showed it to me.I will add evidence on that soon.I should add that BhaiSaab's desperation at smearing me, even to the point of rehashing old accusations of sockpuppetry, should tell you something about HIS edits, particularly Talk:Indian caste system, which arbcomm should peruse carefully.Hkelkar 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab has been a disruptive user

Note, I will elaborate more on these diffs:

1. His anti-semitic trolling has already been mentioned (here is admin User:Blnguyen's assessment)
2. Needling and harrassment.flogging a dead horse:
3. Warnings to BhaiSaab by admins to cease and desist in his actions:
4. POV war in Indian Caste System that got the article protected:(He started the revert-war through misrepresentation of sources and I tried to correct his misrepresentations).Rapid-succession revert-warring despite the fact that my edits are well-sourced and his are not.
5. Constant bogus arguments and refuting of well-sourced refs on Talk:Indian caste system, ethnic baiting:(from his point of view, he still thinks I am a Hindu because of my Maharashtrian name "Kelkar")
6. Obstinately arguing against quoted and sourced edits:
7. Whitewashing the obvious:
8. POV war in Bajrang Dal started by him
9. Assumption of bad faith:
10. POV warring on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh:Following which the article got protected
11. Edit-warring on Bajrang Dal,Also got protected
12. POV warring not restricted to me alone:Warring on Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
13. POV warring on Craig Winn

user:BhaiSaab has expressed anti-semitic views

Well I was going to post diffs showcasing his anti-semitism, and I will, for the sake of propriety.This post is in response to his statement above concerning his "love for Jews" and distinction with "hate for Medinat Yisrael".Of course, being critical of Israel does not make anybody an anti-semite. If you red op/eds from Haaretz or Jpost, you will see plenty of criticism of Israel there only.However, BhaiSaab clearly made statements against me, a Jew, supporting a holocaust denier (whose name I refuse to type, but he is the current president of Iran, you know whom I mean) and saying that "Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place" and "Israel wins only because it leeches off of the US" . Now, the reason why these statements are anti-semitic (and not just "critical of Israel") are as follows:

1. The phrase "leeches" was traditionally used by anti-semites to characterize Jews as a people. The vast literature of anti-semitism clearly shows that Jews were compared to various forms of parasitic life forms throughout the ages by anti-semites.Thus, saying that Israel (with a majority Jewish population) "leeches" (verb form) is indicative of the anti-semitic stereotype that "Jews are leeches", making the sentence an anti-semitic one.
2. It is one thing to constructively criticize Israel. It is another to demand it's destruction. Medinat Israel is s sovereign nation, recognized by all the civilized world as a state with every right to exist. It also has a Jewish Majority with a Jewish Majority government that represents a Jewish majority people and an Arab minority people also. Israel also has among the largest number of Jews in the world. Thus, demanding that "Israel be wiped off the map" is a demand that actions be taken to the end of eliminating the state and it's people. Thus, it demands the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide of the Jewish population. The resultant death toll would clearly be greater than that of the Shoah (the most anti-semitic act in history), making his statement irreconcilably anti-semitic.
3. Regarding his claims of "loving Jews who oppose Israel", I'm sure that everybody realizes that such Jewish groups are a vanishingly small fringe minority who have committed such acts of mishegas against Israel. Naturally, most anti-semites would side with groups that commit such a chilul hashem to try to present themselves as non anti-semites. However, it is clear that siding with such fringe minorities (in on itself not necessarily an anti-semitic thing), coupled together with demands of Israel's destruction, makes his position an anti-semitic one. Hkelkar 08:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:TerryJ-Ho has been a disruptive user

Note: I will elaborate on these diffs in a few days:

1. incivil (and deliberately false) edit summaries:
2. Hypocrisy:He accuses me of using "Anti-X, Anti-Y", but he himself uses the term anti-Muslim liberally, even to the point of violating WP:BLP against Daniel Pipes.Irrelevant BLP against Pipes: Again:.That's three times, in case anyone's counting
3. More BLP violation on Narendra Modi, using poorly sourced statements to defame personality:
4. Paranoid accusations of "fascist right wing blah blah":
5. Tried to instigate a witch Hunt by filing a medcab, which got resoundly denied:Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-18_Edits_by_Netaji_and_Bakaspuprman_on_India_related_pages
6. Evoking a commonly false argument to whitewash antisemitism:(TerryJ-HO's not stupid, he is aa very smart man who clearly knew the fallacy of this argument and used it merely to provoke me)
7. Could be ignorance, could be baiting, you decide.Removing sourced edit:
8. Repeated Bad Faith Assumptions:
9. Bad faith AfD (overwhelmingly condemned as such), already discussed by NobleEagle
10. Spamming talk pages of unrelated aritcles with disputes from other articles to try to form coteries of Guild meatpuppets:
11. Further Spamming of talk pages with material that is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, also baiting:
12. Falsified/misleading statements with a clear intent of ethnic baiting:
13. Whitewashing topics without providing any sources. He did this to the point of blanking entire sections,vandalism as well:
14. Again, labeling of users and ethnic baiting on Muslim Guild page to invite mass-reverters etc:

Concerning TerryJ-Ho's obsession with my Jewishness, he has routinely attacked my Jewishness and has constantly harassed me about it . He has been repeatedly incivil to me and been warned by an admin to desist this line of harassment .

Conclusion: Overall, TerryJ-Ho has been better behaved than BhaiSaab.My only fault is falling for his baiting attempts a couple of times. Also, his abrasive brand of English, (full of deliberate bad grammar and aggressive and disrespectful perorations) got to me a couple of times. My fault there too. That's a cultural thing that comes with the baggage of being Indian.It is clear, however, that he, together with BhaiSaab, routinely engage in various forms of ethnic baiting, labeling of users, incivility, and POV against specific ethno-religious groups.Hkelkar 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to TerryJ-Ho

I know nothing about this "Pussyamitra Sunga" business and will not comment on TerryJ-Ho's obviously circumstantial case.Take this matter up with Trident. As for my views. Well, I never claimed I was a leftie.Hkelkar 17:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian, an established leftist bias, appropriately criticized by Varsha Bhonsle here, attributed accordingly. Partisan sources must be attributed.Hkelkar 05:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The "one big penis" comment was in extremely bad taste, I admit (I got blocked for it and I apologized). However, claiming that the Jama Masjid (a Muslim architectural masterpeice) is better looking than the Qutb Minar is hardly "Hindutva". Many Muslims would agree that the tomb of some guy is less important than a holy Mosque dedicated to the worship of "Allah". TerryJ-Ho's clearly getting desperate here.Hkelkar 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Qutb Minar is the minaret of Quwwatul Islam mosque complex and also dedicated to the worship of "Allah" and predates Jama Masjid by some centuries,.Another indication that you edit on the basis of your convictions rather than facts..MerryJ-Ho 10:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:TerryJ-Ho expresses a deep seated hatred and prejudice against Hindus

Will submit evidence here in 1 day

User:TerryJ-Ho supports Islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism

Will submit evidence here

Response to Mostlyharmless's accusations below

Mostlyharmless holds wikipedia policy in contempt

Please read my contributions to the article in question. They are in scrupulous adherence to wikipedia policy. The narrative is entirely neutral and all claims are attributed as such.My opinions are my own and I have a right to them. Of course, they will not influence the narrative of my edits to articles and , in fact, they haven't. I have established the legitimacy of my edits in the talk page .Mostlyharmless, on the other hand, commented on contributor (me), not content,in his personal attack to me . Per the first paragraph of WP:NPA that is a personal attack. He also declared that he will pursue a witch-hunt against me by "alerting other users" to my views.

This user unilaterally reverted my edits without any reasonable discussion. Massive blanking of sourced edits is vandalism. Plus, there is ample precedent for such criticism in the article per this edit, which has not been contested, unlike my edits. I see a double standard against Indians at work here. Hkelkar 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mostlyharmless promulgates systemic bias

Finally, Mostlyharmless has clearly indicated below that he opposes the opinions of anyone who criticizes his pet organizations. He has engaged in forced censorship (a common practice among libertarians). He removed my edits solely because he disagreed with them, not because of any issues with wikipedia policy, which the edits adhered to rather well. Such editors are unproductive and promulgate the systemic bias problem of wikipedia.Hkelkar 03:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me stress that mostlyharmless has made no racist or antisemitic statements, he has quoted an anti-semitic source, which is not the same thing. He just seems misinformed about left-wing antisemitism and too fanatical in his libertarian ways to see the obvious truth.Hkelkar 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New anti-semitism

Mostlyharmless cited left wing countercurrents.org as a legitimate source. I cited an article by them here that showcases serious antisemitic prejudices (Jewish conspiracy theories etc. see New anti-Semitism from the left), thus, my allegations of antisemitism (not against him, but the source) is entirely with merit and the anti-semites in countercurrents.org are certainly not promulgating a "legitimate opinion".Hkelkar 16:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

PLus, the author, Jonathan Cook, is a known sympathizer with extremist terrorism like this neat little propaganda piece, for instance.See this excellent analysis of such bigoted garbage ("The New Anti-Semitism is Blamed (by Jonathan Cook) on a Vast Jewish Conspiracy").Hkelkar 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Issues with User:TwoHorned

This is the reason why I suspect him of political and ethnic biases:

User:TwoHorned and Anti-Semitism + Obsession with allegations of Neoconservative/Jewish conspiracy theories:

Misplaced Pages-Fr:

Cet article nécessite une neutralisation évidente. Une phrase comme "... et soutient le règlement pacifique des rivalités régionales et internationales" est véritablement grotesque, quand on connait les prises de position de ce Forum lors de ses engagements pro-israéliens, ainsi que les écrits de Daniel Pipes. La vérité est que le Forum du Moyen-Orient est un des innombrables relais d'une politique pro-guerre et fondalement interventioniste au Proche-Orient, qu'il est aligné sur les thèses néoconservatrices et de la droite israélienne la plus dure. TwoHorned 5 août 2006 à 12:12 (CEST)

Translation:

This article needs neutralization. A phrase like ".....and supports the pacifique settlement of regional and international conflicts" is really grotesque, when one knows the positions of this Forum during their pro-Israel engagments, and also the writings of Daniel Pipes. The truth is that the Forum of the Middle East is one of the countless relays (organisations) of pro-war politics and fundamentally intervenionist in the Middle East, and is aligned on the the most hard neo-conservative and Israeli rightwing theses.

Misplaced Pages-Fr:

Les think-tanks néoconservateurs proches de certains mouvements fondamentalistes juifs ou chrétiens aux US sont d'une nature très particulière, et qui n'a que peu de rapport avec un parti classique conservateur, du type de celui que vous citez. TwoHorned

Translation:

The neo-conservative think-thanks which are close to certain Jewish or Christian fundamentalist movements in the US are of a very particular nature, and which has only little relation with a classic conservative (political) party, of the type that you are citing.

: Here he says that Michelle Malkin is extreme right and very related to the most extremist neocon circles.

Here he attacks Warraq and the ISIS (it is in English) Hkelkar 12:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice that he associated "Jews" with neoconservatives, a characterization widely regarded as an anti-semitic ethnic slur (see this).Hkelkar 16:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Hornplease by Hkelkar

Hornplease has cited diffs, but has misrepresented them egregiously. Regarding this, it is clear that it represents a scholarly view that satisfies WP:RS and so is admissible. The only reason hornplease wants it taken out is because he wants to promulgate his own prejudices and deny the Noakhali Genocide, much like a holocaust denier, only more subtle.

Hornplease put in a diff of Bakaman's edits in a section titles "Hkelkar has been disruptive". It has nothing to do with me and is clearly another attempt to prejudice the ArbComm. He has cited that anti-semitism of BhaiSaab is an "accusation" whereas I have established it as fact.

I should point out that in his allegation number 6, he has lied through his teeth.Look at the diff carefully. The edits are not misrepresented but constitute a scholarly opinion, entirely citable on wikipedia for which there was near universal consensus (he was the only detractor).

"as well as a complete lack of due diligence when removing statements or demanding citations:"?? Am not required to DEMAND citations per WP:RS. I demanded it, he provided it, I said ok and left the matter alone. Why is he bringing up this non-issue?Again, an attempt to prejudice the arbcomm. Please have immaterial posts removed.

Regarding Point 7, I suggest you look at the entire discussion and you will see an attempt to defame the subject of the article by certain parties, a clear cause for defwarn. Hornplease is again trying to misrepresent the situation totry to get me banned so that he may defame the subject egregiously like he did to so many others.

Regarding point 8, it was a subtle act of vandalism on hornplease's part. He was using one poorly cited source (not by me, but by another user) and using it's removal as a mask to remove a well-cited source. That is a bad faith edit on his part. Again, peruse the diffs and you will see that all my edits have been mainstream sources there and reflected the text, and hornplease only removed them and tried to cover it up with bafflegab to mask his biases

Many of the research involved in making those edits were not done by me but by other users such as User:Freedom skies. I suggest that arbcomm get his side of the story, and he will point out hornplease's egregious abuse in this case. Hkelkar 09:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, take a look at his bad faith edits to the anti-Hindu AfD, making claims that I have demonstrated as falsehoods that I'm sure he knew about.

Falsehoods made by hornplease:

Saying that he hasn't heard of the term "anti-Hindu" and calling it a neologism, when the earliest use of it was by Sir Jadunath Sarkar in the late 1800's, some neologism.

1. Then he claimed that it was "used only by right wing groups", another blatant lie on his part which I proved again by citing academic sources

Then he himself backpedals and admits that non rightwing sources have used the term This shows his intellectual dishonesty.Hkelkar 09:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Finally, hornplease's comment that I ran a googoe book search is another blatant lie. The search was by another user , not by me. Thus, hornplease is an established liar and the arbcomm should take that into consideration regarding his other misrepresentations and falsifications here.Hkelkar 11:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Responses to Twohorned

 Clerk note: Hkelkar's threaded responses moved here. Thatcher131 12:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't lie to blatantly. If you look at Sir Nick's post here you will see that he (a mediating admin) agreed with most of my assertions. Plus, I have clerly established that TwoHorned has made anti-semitic attributes and got rather defensive when I exposed them.Hkelkar 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"nauseating propaganda", if attributed and adequately sourced, is acceptable per wikipedia policy, What is not accpetable is terrorist poison like FOSA and HRW being sourced without appropriate attribution, which is the goal of the Muslim Guild editors (listed and unlisted).Hkelkar 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages admins should also be aware that a group of people has, for obvious reasons, the project of using extremist sources like sabrang and imc and others (see my comment concerning Sir Nick's assessment below, on which TwoHorned has lied assiduously) to spread hate against Hindus on wikipedia, a typical tactic used by BhaiSaab and TerryJ-Ho and, evidently, backed by twoHorned in his anti-semitic rants.Hkelkar 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

HRW is hardly "harmless", several groups like ADL have confirmed that they are anti-semites and Arvind Bahl has shown that they are anti-Hindu as well. Many reputable news sources have established their pro-Hamas pro-Hezbollah Islamist sympathies. See Human_Rights_Watch#Criticisms, an interesting section that showcases their racist biases.Hkelkar 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already established that TerryJ-Ho HAS been harrassing me (see the workshop page where even ArbComm mambers have raised this concern).Hkelkar 04:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice his baseless comments about "Hindutva rhetoric" where I have used quite legitimate sources to cite facts that have nothing to do with any Hindu group at all (show me where I have done so). This TwoHorned should change his userid to TwoFaced, given his obvious misrepresentations.Hkelkar 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I also hope that Arbcom notices his usage of words like "extremist" to denote legitimate think tanks that I have sourced and attributed, as well as websited like http://www.dalithumanrights.com, and others that he dismisses as "Hindutva rhetoric" (see Dalit) should show his own biases on this matter and his attempt to get me banned so that he may put in his own Islamist biases into the articles which I have painstakingly cleaned up and neutralized.Hkelkar 04:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Nobleeagle

TerryJ-Ho has a prejudice against Hinduism, Hindus and Hindu culture

The most disturbing bit of this evidence is the heading. Culture of Hate, he then goes to talk about how Hindus in India are prejudiced against Muslims. But what is the Culture of Hate, a religion that has been known for its peacefulness has now suddenly spawned a culture of hate? Clear bias, almost disturbing view of another culture. The rest of the discussion is on Hkelkar's Jewishness. This is not the first time such users have placed huge importance on Hkelkar's religion. just one more example. TerryJ-Ho reckons Hindu culture is a Culture of Hate and then goes on to try and prove Hkelkar is Hindu, which to him implies that Hkelkar is from this Hate-filled culture. I am personally offended. Nobleeagle 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

TerryJ-Ho acts in bad faith against Hindu or Hindutva-sympathetic users

First of all. I made a simple good faith merge of seperate incidents on 2002 Gujarat violence. I don't see any bad faith or Hindutva propaganda in my edit. TerryJ-Ho comes back and accuses me of doing a PR for the Gujarat Government and labels my edit as disgusting. see here. I'm offended by that as he effectively accuses me of supporting the killing of innocent people.

Also see the archived deletion debate here. TerryJ-Ho nominates a well-sourced and well-built article for two reasons. The fact that it breeds Hindu sympathetic feelings and the fact that it was created by Hkelkar. Nothing else. He then brings up the point that Anti-Hindu is an adjective. Well then he should've asked for a move or politely asked for a merge. But he acted in bad faith. If you see his first comments he describes Hindutva - the right wing Hindu religio- Xenophobe movement in India and increasingly abroad . Firstly the right wing religio-xenophobe accusation is false, but I shouldn't talk about that here, secondly that proves that his motives for this deletion debate were simply because he wanted to get rid of Hindutva on Misplaced Pages. Nobleeagle 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TerryJ-Ho

Responses

Response to Bakasuprman

• Just click on Hindu fundamentalism and know the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva on Misplaced Pages itself and know to what "Being Hindu" - Hindutva redirects to MerryJ-Ho 11:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• As an example of Bakasuprman's edits - He prefers to remove my edits based on Brittanica and CNN - The actual period of advent of Hinduism in Afghanistan is not certain.The Chinese traveller Huen-tsang wrote in the 7th century of the existence of Hindu Shahi kingdoms in the Kabul, Gardez and Ghazni areas.Hinduism influenced many Afghan states under the Hephthalites and Sasanids. Some excavations sites in Kabul and Ghazni exhibit common Hindu and Buddhist religious places implying there was significant intermingling between the two religions in Afghanistan.

• and now the same article after HKelkar's edits says triumphatically Hinduism in Afghanistan has existed for almost as long as Hinduism itself while the statement itself does not show on what basis one can say that.

Response to Nobeleagle

• Anyone reading my comments knows what I mean and not what you are trying to project.Another time tested strategy of this group of editors to save Hkelkar's skin - instead of replying to the charges with reason- they will attack othersMerryJ-Ho
• Again - Mr.Kelkar's Jewish religion is being raked by this group and not me or those who oppose the Hindutva - Hindu right wing POV pushing on Misplaced Pages.MerryJ-Ho

Response to Freedomskies

• Double standards - Much hype is being made of my comments on "Culture of hate" - which is a specific instance where I have termed HKelkar's activities as hateful and not "Hinduism" as religion or "Indian Culture" to which I belong too.While HKelkar got some Bhiasaab blocked for comments that were construed as Anti-Semitic - he walks away in all liberty calling me Pakistani - which in Indian scenario is considered an abuse - considering that Pakistan is taken as India's traditional enemy.

Response to Hkelkar

Will write more from home -

1. incivil (and deliberately false) edit summaries:

• Is it a common trend? Anyone looking at the history of that article will know the reason why?..False according to whom?

1. Hypocrisy:He accuses me of using "Anti-X, Anti-Y", but he himself uses the term anti-Muslim liberally, even to the point of violating WP:BLP against Daniel Pipes.Irrelevant BLP against Pipes: Again:.That's three times, in case anyone's counting

• Yes, please do count (the same article shown twice) and also don't forget that I explained the reason later as below:I have taken cue from you .In fact, I have been everyone as Anti-Hindu. ...What is your definition of Liberal usage..one ,two or three

1. More BLP violation on Narendra Modi, using poorly sourced statements to defame personality:

• "The Guardian" published from London..Poor source???..All are invited to look into what was removed by HKelkar

1. Paranoid accusations of "fascist right wing blah blah":
2. Tried to instigate a witch Hunt by filing a medcab, which got resoundly denied:Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-18_Edits_by_Netaji_and_Bakaspuprman_on_India_related_pages
3. Evoking a commonly false argument to whitewash antisemitism:(TerryJ-HO's not stupid, he is aa very smart man who clearly knew the fallacy of this argument and used it merely to provoke me)
4. Could be ignorance, could be baiting, you decide.Removing sourced edit:

• Have some shame..it is crystal clear that that item was not supported by any source

1. Repeated Bad Faith Assumptions:
2. Bad faith AfD (overwhelmingly condemned as such), already discussed by NobleEagle

• That AfD was not successful as votes were solicited by HKelkar meaning many editors of a background similar to him voted, rhetoric was built up attacking my and other balanced user's previous edits rather than the article itself.One of the neutral supporter for delete said Delete. It brings together collection of unrelated events and classifies them under term coined here. I see very, very disturbing trend to create "anti-everything" articles on Misplaced Pages. If this gets free I expect to have Anti-Andorraism one day.

1. Spamming talk pages of unrelated aritcles with disputes from other articles to try to form coteries of Guild meatpuppets:

• Yeah until one reads "stop this behavior, there is nothing wrongwith what TerryJ-Ho has said to you, its pretty clear you keep and adding {{dubious}} tags for no apparent reason other then that the information which is presented you don't like"...]

1. Further Spamming of talk pages with material that is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, also baiting:
2. Falsified/misleading statements with a clear intent of ethnic baiting:
3. Whitewashing topics without providing any sources. He did this to the point of blanking entire sections,vandalism as well:
4. Again, labeling of users and ethnic baiting on Muslim Guild page to invite mass-reverters etc:

Concerning TerryJ-Ho's obsession with my Jewishness, he has routinely attacked my Jewishness and has constantly harassed me about it . He has been repeatedly incivil to me and been warned by an admin to desist this line of harassment .

• HKelkar was very eagerly answering the questions until Nick wrote that comment.Why did he not write that he was feeling harassed. What is the defintion of Jewishness that I attacked?

Evidence showing that Hkelkar is an upgraded version of Subhash Bose, Pussyamitra Sunga et. al

• Shiva's Trident has recieved numerous last warnings and HKelkar himself has recieved them in abundance.If it is established that both are the same person , that is aggravating.As this is not a live audience where the two persons can be called separately, I believe due weightage will be accorded to the circumstantial evidence which is quite strong in this case.

Evidence will be given here

Editing per Pussyamitra Sunga

• Pusyamitra is my brother.We think alike - by the way - as Netaji he confused that he was editing in the same login as Pusyamitra while claiming to be his brother, on realising he covered the tracks by changing it to "Netaji" is my brother
• We edit each other's stuff?So what?Kya Karega be? - The sentence in Hindi meaning - What can you do..
• Notice that we have different IP's
• The reason why one can not expect HKelkar to write German as he used in the previous avatars is that this has already been pointed out
• Hindutva has no fascist inclination because the definition of fascism is different

Editing per Shiva's Trident

• the only things edited are POV statements made by the Liberal Left

Editing per HKelkar

• If you want to tout the latte-drinking elitist secular fundamentalism of the Liberal Left academia without even following wikipedia..

Evidence showing that Hkelkar is a Hindutva POV posting machine

Always on - HKelkar goes on like a bulldozer, destroying numerous articles within a single session calling the process as NPOVising the article and balancing the article.

• Incivility in general towards Muslims overflowing in articles and edit summaries Here Hkelkar seems to think he is doing some favour to them by removing Qutub Minar and inserting Jama Masjid in its place saying "Jama Masjid is a better illustration of Muslim architecture. Qutub Minar is basically just one big penis" - as usual this would be in line with the Hindutva agenda of degrading the significance of Muslim monuments- some of which they claim_{....A BBC report goes like this ....Earlier this year, it called for the storming of one of India's landmark tourist attractions - the Qutab Minar in Delhi - and for the takeover of the Quwwatul Islam mosque.}

Evidence presented by TwoHorned

Evidence showing that Hkelkar is very likely a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer

• In his user page, Shiva's Trident (alias Netaji) describes himself as a PhD student at the University of Texas working in a specific subdomain of Statistical Physics.

• In connection with the previous point and some of Hkelkar's edits (, ), an examination of the different physics departments at the University of Texas, Austin, shows that Hkelkar = Netaji (same logo used in Netaji's page, same specific subdomains of statistical physics, convergence on research topics as displayed by H. Kelkar and Netaji etc.). Since the evidence involves the names of individuals outside this case, I'll provide the links on admins' request. Please also note that, as opposed to Hkelkar's accusation, I don't intent to display Hkelkar's real name: instead, Hkelkar gave his real name himself in the above-mentionned Misplaced Pages edit .

TwoHorned 13:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar makes defamation using unfounded threat of anti-semitism

• Hkelkar has accused me of antisemitism, without ever giving any substantiation. In the following evidence, he levelled that accusation against me: . Note that the accusation was levelled just because I used the term "neocon" in a discussion page. I mentionned sometimes the word "neocon" in some wikipedia articles I edited (for instance , , , three of them are in french) but they never contain any antisemitic allegation, and I explained that to Hkelkar in my talk page . I also took the time to make Hkelkar see that this word "neocon" was used in the Misplaced Pages article on Neoconservatism many times without triggering any accusation of antisemitism. I repeatedly asked him to substantiate his point (for instance ). He never did, and never provided any quotation, for obvious reasons. In his user page , Shiva'sTrident introduces himself as a neocon, and the self-proclamed political affiliations of that user in the same page make the connection with the sockpuppetry case clear.

• In an above paragraph, and also in his user page, user Hkelkar presents a future on-going project of his own called User TwoHorned and Anti-Semitism where he is repeating once again the same baseless accusation. He presents two excerpts coming from french wikipedia articles I edited. I comment them separately:

• The first passage comes from the discussion page in the french article on the Middle East Forum. In the discussion, I am saying that the main article needs neutralization because, according to numerous sources, the Middle East Forum does not feature an impartial perspective on Middle East conflict and that, yes, it is aligned with right-wing and pro-israeli warfare. Such an assertion does not contain any antisemitic intention, and it represents a mainstream opinion in some media and specialized litterature. That Hkelkar interprets that according to "Jewish conspiracy" stream of thought and antisemitic views remains a mystery to me.

• The second passage comes from another discussion page of a french Misplaced Pages article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. There, I am discussing with somebody trying to explain me that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been backed in the Netherlands by "conservative parties". Then, I explain that what is called the "neoconservative movement" is not of the same type than classical conservative parties in Europe. This is a well known fact, completely devoid of any antisemitic connotation. That some fundamentalist Christian or Jewish groups give support to the neocons is also a fact, not an interpretation of my own. Incidentally, Hkelkar never got me blocked on the "antisemitic ground" although his threats (you will notice that, in the previous link, he also suspects me of being "a sock of indefbanned User:Robert Lindsay", another baseless accusation).

• Regarding my quotation on Michelle Malkin provided by Hkelkar, I was writing that Michelle Malkin is a right-wing journalist, and I guess I'm not the only one saying that, and this is not antisemitism anyway; that quotation occurred in an edit (see where you can see the link).

• And regarding the link provided about my edit in the Ibn Warraq article , I was just providing evidence, using the Internet Archive Engine, that the ISIS web site once featured a link to a right-wing political party that has been banned in Israel since. As you can read by yourself here there is nowhere any mention of a so-called "Jewish conspiracy", neither there nor in any edit I've ever done.

• My edits about the neoconservative movement represent a very small amount among my contributions. So where is it to discuss about my "obsession with allegations of Neoconservative/Jewish conspiracy theories" ?

• Hkelkar's accusations of antisemitism are unfounded, but it seems sometimes impossible for him to repress edits of a truly racist character: Hkelkar has been using the word “Ayrabs” to depict Arabs . That word is very frequently used by racist people on extreme-right web sites. An example: , (warning: offensive content). About that Hkelkar says : “Regarding my unfortunate comment about Arabs, if you see the diff I immediately withdrew it once I realized that it can be misinterpreted as anti-Arabism”. Well, not immediatly, a mere 4 hour later, and probably not because of disgust with such racist slang: this word “Ayrab” is used exclusively by racist extremists, so it cannot be “misinterpreted”: there is one and only one interpretation of it. Instead wasn’t user Hkelkar suddenly aware of being unmasked on Misplaced Pages as using the same slang as his “intellectual” sources ?

TwoHorned 16:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar, along with a group of users, puts a specific ideological bias on Misplaced Pages articles related to India

I apologize to the ArbCom to put a long section here, but I have a lot to say, and I adopt the following scheme: description + diffs.

• To understand exactly what Hkelkar's disruption pattern is, what are its objectives and framework of realization, one has to refer to Netaji's planned agenda, as stated by himself in his user page:

"Working on cleaning up the awful wikipedia articles on Hinduism, Indian history and Indian Politics. Most of them are absolute disasters and are being edited by certain "ahem" people with vested political and polemical interests". .

• Such a "cleaning process", which is incidentally exactly what Hkelkar has been doing since an admin's conclusion of Netaji being a sockpuppet, was intented to alter, vandalize and present in a inconceivable partisan pro-Hindutva outlook all Misplaced Pages articles about India's history.

• This agenda consists basically in the following: with a nearly chaotic state of irrepressed excitation and relentless combativity, change all Misplaced Pages articles related to the mutual relations between India's history, Hinduism and Islam to produce an extremist portrayal on these thematics paralleled with a specific political perspective. Hkelkar and his mates are not quite learned about the issues they intervene into, extremely prolific, and not quite challenging intellectually (the quantitative argument which is put forward by Bakasuprman in a nearly automatic manner, about the so-called impressive amounts of edits done by Hkelkar or Bakasuprman is irrelevant, for quite a simple reason: in the domains of knowledge or encyclopedic matters, quantity adds for zero w.r.t. understanding). Since these people don't compete at the intellectual level, their method of action is the following:

a- first proceed to raw reversion and knowingly expose balanced views;

b- wait for the original editor to react upon;

c- then, here is what happens: Hkelkar or his wiki-friends quickly end the discussion either by insults, incivility, or using considerations not related to the topic, like defamation of other academics .

d- All this logically triggers an obvious reaction from the first editor, which is quickly banned on 3RR violation basis (this is where they make use of sock and meat puppetry, among other instances).

• Here is a typical list of diffs illustrating the previous paragraph; Hkelkar and Bharatveer working in pair to block me:

1. ,
2. ,
3. ,
4. ,
5. ,
6. . All of this results in my blocking for 3RR.

This pattern has been applied systematically, and not only with me (another example, not involving me: ). You will notice that in the process I explained my edits in the talk page. I have fallen in their trap of 3RR violation, because it was the first time I got blocked on these matters, and I was unaware of the 3RR rule at that time.

• It should be mentionned that such reversions, lack of references and incivility is still operating as the request of arbitration is under way. For example, I added a referenced sentence in the Koenraad Elst page: . The reference was there to show some topics related to the author described in the article, these topics coming from the author's publishing's house itself. Then, for unknown reasons, user Bondego (a wiki-friend of Hkelkar) just cancelled the reference and the sentence I wrote, and rewrote the sentence while providing a reference geared at whitewashing the controversial topic related to the author: (these deletions were appearing in the "Controversy and influences" section of the article). I posted a message on Bondego's talk page, asking him not to cancel properly referenced topics: . Bondego never replied. Instead, another wiki-friend of Hkelkar, Bharatveer then comes into play, and proceeds to another reversion without giving any explanation: .

• Why do these people work in pair ? (for instance: ) To force editors they disagree with to violate 3RR while evading that rule in the same time. This is just an example of a process I observed many times with these users. Incidentally, Koenraad Elst is an extremely controversed author sharing the same ideological views than Hkelkar, Bharatveer etc. It seems very important to these disruptive users to completely rewrite Misplaced Pages articles related to India in order to display this typical extremist and Hindutva coloration. Such a warring behaviour, though now unveiled, did produce a noticeable effect: there is an incrediblly huge set of Misplaced Pages articles about India's history, Hinduism and Islam that are considerably altered by that war machine, and they lighten the seriousness of Misplaced Pages on these matters. The "fantastic energy" depicted by Hornplease to describe the obsessive destruction pattern of Hkelkar and his friends lead me to the same ending conclusion: I have no time to indefinitely proceed to reversion of articles that are viciously altered by these people (and doing so using Misplaced Pages in a very perverse manner); so, I also came to the conclusion to abandon any editing in Misplaced Pages. I have contributed to few articles to the English Misplaced Pages, for instance to the Koenraad Elst article; my aim was to honestly mention the controversies about a truly controversed author (both in India and in the West) who, like Hkelkar , fits himself into a process of "rewriting history", and I provided all references and citations which were, by no means a reflexion of my own ideas, but opinions displayed by professional academics, for example Prof. R. Zydenbos. No one can imagine the war-editing process that was engaged by Hkelkar to systematically erase all my contributions (you'll get an idea of it by referring to , and then on). Among them: accusations of antisemitism (which are, as I said, totally ungrounded), dirty play with 3RR rule, denials and insults to me and other academics, and finally, since these people have really nothing to oppose in the intellectual domain, the following conclusion: .

• I now illustrate the previous paragraph with a series of diffs.

I’ve been involved in the redaction of the “Controversies” part of the Koenraad Elst article; this controversial author had in the beginning an apological article, and I worked on documenting the “Controversies” section. I also worked thoroughly the discussion page of Koenraad Elst article, first under my first id on Misplaced Pages AlexOriens, an id I almost don’t use anymore, then under my present id, TwoHorned.

1. Then Netaji comes into scene, and ask Hornplease to suspend the discussion: because he wants to contact Koenraad Elst himself. Around that time, the article page looked like this: . This was around July 27 or so. In the meantime, I developped a long conversation in the talk page explaining the validity of the references I gave for the controversial aspects of Koenraad Elst: .
2. Then Hkelkar comes into the arena, and cancels the edits of someone called Kochank: . Kochank edit simply added the fact that Koenraad Elst works are controversial, a well known fact among academics. Incidentally, you will notice that Hkelkar cancelled the edit for the obsessive motive of “letf-wing Marxist propaganda”, an instinct common among hindutvavadis. I take the opportunity here to say that I have absolutely no sympathy for the “Marxist left-wing” (we suffer from these guys in France since May 68), and that I have a profound admiration both for Islam and Hinduism.
3. But all of this triggers a legitimate reversion from Kochank, who says in his edit summary that he gives explanations in the talk page:.
4. Then Hkelkar reverses again: . You will notice the curious partisan method of quoting controversies about an author with the author himself. Serious academic never work like that. You have to expose both parties.
5. Then someone tries legitimately to put the article in the right track by reversion to the previous version: .
6. Hkelkar reverts again (without any quotation, by the way): .
7. Hornplease modifes the article, triggering an eruption from Bondego: .
8. Hkelkar comes back, and describes Daniel Pipes as a “middle east scholar”, instead of the more classical “neoconservative” qualification used, among many instances, by Misplaced Pages itself: . All of that deserves one goal: to wash a controversial author from his well known affiliations into politically suspect milieux. Please note Hkelkar’s edit summary in : how can it be WP:BLP since Daniel Pipes is introduced that way in Misplaced Pages itself ?
9. Then comes the serious stuff: Bondego removes all the well referenced controversies, in particular those coming from R. Zydenbos, a well known academic: .
10. I decided it was time to intervene, and I engaged into a reversion process, perfectly legitimate since sources coming from academic are given: .
11. Hkelkar then takes the occasion not only to make reversion, but to cancel all the controversies: under the edit summary of “biased writeup”. Not only that, Hkelkar removes in the talk page my edit saying that Daniel Pipes is foremost a neoconservative instead of a middle-east scholar: : but that was the description given in the Misplaced Pages article for Daniel Pipes itself ! This pattern is then applied systematically in my future edits, with unfounded accusations of antisemitism, incivility etc.

• Misplaced Pages admins should be aware that a group of people has, for unknown reasons, the project of entirely "rewriting" Indian Misplaced Pages articles in order to display in these articles the most extremist, hateful and nauseating propaganda geared towards a deepening of the Hindu/Muslim divide in India. I am afraid that this can be really dangerous because of the ever-growing large-scale audience Misplaced Pages is getting, and moreover such a pattern does not match the deep, complex, living and hidden network of relations that evolved in India between Hinduism and Islam throughout history. Misplaced Pages admins would be well advised that all articles "revisited" or created by Hkelkar and his disruptive friends should be watched upon and carefully checked by non partisan third-parties.

• This little adventure brought me towards the limits of Misplaced Pages in its attempt at being a future recognized reference on some matters. I am deeply sorry to make this statement, but I am just expressing here my exact feelings.

• User Hkelkar is disrupting any article he disagrees, and the problem is that Hkelkar's perspective is rather particular: for instance, a harmless NGO like HRW (and which is not specially pro-palestinian) is described by him as "a cabal of terrorists who should be hanged from lampposts" : . As Hkelkar is deploying endless energy to runnig his cleansing agenda by touching every article around related to hot political events, India, and Islam, no surprise that a whole pan of Misplaced Pages is suddenly adopting a dark, "black shirt", "Robin Mac Arthur like" () coloration, as he is entirely devoted to putting forward an extremist flavor to all the subjects in which he intervenes; Hkelkar run their disinformation industry by indulging into the intimidation tactics, by systematically reverting innumerable edits that are nevertheless perfectly neutral and referred. I have been experiencing such a behaviour on the Koenraad Elst page mainly, but the tactics is applied systematically, and knowingly, to an incredible amount of articles, in a perfectly determined operation plan. The intimidation tactics operates on many fronts: systematic blocking of users by abuse of the 3RR rule (with the help of his mates), harassment of many users and admins, sockpuppetry. I remember a question that I raised when I was under his attacks: for what reason does he do that ? What does he has to gain ? How a PhD student can take 100% of his time in endlessly realizing his agenda ?

• Bakasuprman's (a wiki-friend of Hkelkar) obsession with cabal: . An example of this user incivility:

A NPA request triggered by me: .

I follow the process and put a npa3 tag: .

He cancels the npa3 tag and says I am a troll: .

The decision: .

In another place, and after the final decision, he still writes I am a troll: .

He contests the decision by fulfilling it with his own commentaries, which triggers a reaction from the admin: . You will notice this habit of replying directly inside someone's edits: a practice still used by Hkelkar up to this ArbCom case.

• About CltFn's statement: the accusation of a supposedly harassing behaviour of BhaiSaab is unlikely here, since the referred link points to a case in which the "harassed" user was finally found guilty of sockpuppetry. So BhaiSaab action was justified and quite positive there. Moreover, CltFn's is probably engaging into personnal revenge here as he was blocked for sockpuppetry himself. Since this user has made contributions only on extremely controversal topics (see his contributions which are almost 100% oriented into nasty islamophobic entries, I'm wondering what kind of farce is intented to mean his barnstar for contribution to islamic articles in Misplaced Pages.

• About Hornplease interrogation on the "switching account" thing presented here , I guess the answer is quite simple: in the meantime, Netaji was found guilty of sockpuppetry with other users, so it was not very valuable for him to assume such an identity anymore, mostly for someone who is 100% engaged in a process of attacking other Misplaced Pages users.

TwoHorned 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mostlyharmless

I have only encountered this user in the context of two pages, but have found this users attitude towards wikipedia very difficult to deal with, more so than anyone I've encountered here.

Extremely abrasive

The user has made extremely POV remarks about an organisation he was going to edit . This user then procedeeded to make significant one sided edits to the organisation s/he'd said should be hanged from lamposts. The user then called others libertarian fanatics when edits were challenged. He then called the organisation 'small and shady'. The user accuses others of 'baseless tantrums and veiled ad hominum attacks'. The user seems to think that these are irrelevant , and that mentioning this is a personal attack

Allegations of indophobia and anti-semitism

The user has also made poisonous allegations of Indophobia towards editors after the neutrality of her/his edits were challenged, while making baseless allegations of corruption towards the subject in question. Uses allegations of anti-semitism towards legitimate political opinions.

User seems to think that WP is a soapbox for contesting opinions

Of most concern to me is the fact that the user thinks that wikipedia works by people putting in information supporting one side and then having others NPOV it by putting in opposing information. This is reflected consistently in the users edits, see; here , and here . This has been reflected consistently in discussion. , . The user likes to claim that expressing extreme POV and one sided editing is not important if you can make your edits sound NPOV; here 'I certainly won't enter them into the article(s) unless I can source them in a neutral narrative, but HRW is definitely a cabal of terrorists who should be hanged from lampposts', and here , , , . It is this behaviour that is of most concern to me, as it is the most damaging, and hardest to address.

Response to Hkelkar's allegations above

I removed the disputed section to the talkpage so that it could be discussed, and POV issues worked out . It remains there, and I think that the proper thing to do is resolve the issues about neutrality (which have been raised by numerous others) on the talk page, rather than having POV attack piece in the article, which is the current situation. I don't think calling me a libertarian is very civil either (no disrespect intended to libertarians!)

The countercurrents piece Hkelkar charges with anti-semitism was only cited for one particular piece of evidence regarding India. When Hkelkar expressed dissatisfaction with the source, I found and cited the same information from the Hindu Times... the charge of anti-semitism was used to try and discredit useful and verified information.

Evidence presented by Hornplease

Hkelkar (talk · contribs) has been disruptive

I am limiting myself to this particular user, although in my opinion the greater threat to the project is from Bakasuprman (talk · contribs), who has more energy, and similar tactics, together with greater, often brazen incivility and aggression.

Let me make clear the methodology used by this editor, limiting myself to our mutual interaction, and not whatever he was up to elsewhere. I apologise to ArbCom for not using the common template, but I believe that this will present the data more effectively.

1. Step into stable situations and edit, controversially, without explanation or reference to context: ,
2. Quote mining: . Struggling to find something that will confirm a previously held belief. This will subesequently be claimed to be a representative quote.
3. Aggressive editing: . Claiming alternative views are "anti-Hindu" - and all acceptable, peer-reviewed sources are "pseudo-secular". (Or Marxist. We will return to that.)
4. An aggressive reaction to correction, consisting first of accusations of personal anti-Semitism, and being 'anti-Hindu', a neologism created by claiming an analogous history of persecution: , followed by a random accusations of puppetry - or, frequently an accusation of vandalism (of which more later.)
5. Mis-citing a reliable source, and then defending it deliberately obtusely in the hope that opposition will go away - consider my attempts at explanation of a single mis-cited and misquoted reference here , , , , and , the last-named in response to an accusation of 'playing the fool'. I wasnt the only editor pointing out the same thing: .
6. Insertion of deliberate inaccuracy to push a POV, caught here , as well as a complete lack of due diligence when removing statements or demanding citations: ,
7. Dismissal of mainstream academic thought . Note that the paper in question is India's paper of record, and the 'random' author in question is the tenured head of a department at UCLA, and a former Director of Studies at France's apex Social Sciences school, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, and the first Chair in Indian History and Culture at the University of Oxford. However he is dismissed as peripheral, and also elsewhere as a apologist for terrorists, which really could not be further from the truth.
8. Next, if by some mischance a mis-cited, unrepresentative quote that has been dug up and given pride of place in some articles is removed as part of very necessary house-cleaning, a vandalism tag goes up and the oft-repeated statement "removal of sourced information is vandalism" is rolled out, as in this sequence of edit comments., , , . I point out the absurdity of that here, with a remark that the misquotation had been challenged weeks ago on the talkpage . No noticeable change in behaviour results.
9. And finally, if all else fails, call in your friends and simply declare that you are closing off further discussion. ("Mission accomplished", anyone?) , .

This is a small sample of this editor's behaviour. It is limited to his interaction with me, and to a few weeks, not his entire time on WP. I have ignored all his incivility, which was continual and grating, as something evident on any investigation. Note that the incivility was not only directed at other POV-pushers such as are attacked elsewhere on this project page, but also at those who manifestly had no POV to push. (But did, in Kelkar's paranoid opinion.) I am not quoting his hate-filled statements about India-Pakistan peace groups or prominent academics or major newspapers ("terrorist Islamist sympathisers ", "commies" and "pinko rags", or words to that effect), as their sheer quantity implies that they will be readily available to any investigator. I am not commenting further on sockpuppetry, except to note that if it is demonstrated that Subhas and Kelkar are the same person, I have a few more things to add.

These people are profoundly distressing. WP needs to take a stand now; its complacency about POV being eventually removed will not stand up in the face of well-organised, energetic editors gaming the system in this manner. If I have given up and left the project, anybody would who wasnt a POV-pusher themselves. Hornplease 09:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to HKelkar's comments about the above

• I hope that someone will rework this page. HKelkar's comments below should be posted in his own section.

• Please note the tone of Kelkar's response. This is representative of most of his interventions. "Misrepresented them egregiously", "attempt to prejudice", "promulgate his own prejudices." Civility and Kelkar have never been introduced.

• About this, note he has missed the point I was making. This is representative; when something has been explained, he will choose to misunderstand it in order to go ad hominem ("much like a holocaust denier") and claim bias. As I said above, the fact is that Kelkar thought that a particular massacre should be described as genocidal. He went out to look for something that would do so. He eventually found one - out of several hundreds, and not available everywhere. This would then be presented as the mainstream, standard view, as his statement in this very RfArb indicates. Standard procedure for HKelkar and co. Thanks for the additional example!

• This is not a diff but a link to a talkpage section. It contains your standard accusation of anti-Hindu vandalism, as I discussed in the sentence in which I linked it. Yet you state "It has nothing to do with me and is clearly another attempt to prejudice the ArbComm."

• I state that accusations of anti-Semitism are par for the course for you. I have observed you accuse TwoHorned of it on remarkably flimsy ground. I have read your comments on BhaiSaab's attitude to Israel above. In my opinion, it remains merely an accusation.

• I am not sure how I have "lied through my teeth" on 6. I put in "what they saw" in the following sentence about Shivaji and Rana Pratap in their relations with Akbar and Aurangzeb: "celebrate kings for combating what they saw as foreign invasion and domination." This was attacked. I pointed out that Shivaji and the Marathas might conceivably view the Mughals as 'foreign'; but that Rana Pratap could not be said to represent all the Rajputs, as the majority fought with Akbar - as the very same article said. (I said "Pratap was fighting an army including large numbers of his fellow Rajputs under the banner of a fairly liberal ruler. Unless you want to remove the reference to Akbar right below?")

HKelkar follows that in the quoted section by claiming only Rajput mercenaries fought with Akbar, which is denied even in the scanty WP articles on Rana Pratap and Akbar. Akbar was a liberal ruler, who ceased to consider himself Muslim, had married into the Rajputs, and is and was generally considered Indian - indeed is claimed as Indian on the very same page. For Kelkar to argue against a mere qualifier ("what they saw as foreign") is a little silly, to say the very AGF-y least.

Below, he makes the statement "constitute a scholarly opinion, entirely citable on wikipedia for which there was near universal consensus (he was the only detractor". That Akbar was a foreigner is not "scholarly opinion". It is not "citable on Misplaced Pages", whatever that means. There is no "universal consensus" on WP or in real life. Indeed, for him to make that claim is pointless, as it is falsified two sentences below the changes he was making, which stated at the time that "Many Indians take pride in great Indian rulers such as Ashoka and Akbar...".

Note that having to make this sort of lengthy defence of obvious things is par for the course when one is dealing with HKelkar.

• About my 'due diligence' accusation, please note that a citation had been provided, a reference to a prominent newsmagazine. Kelkar demanded to "see" a back issue of a major Indian magazine not archived on the web. He did not attempt to confirm if the quote so cited was a commonly known quote - as I said, he didn't even Google it. What he expected was the response "it is not archived on the web". His response to that is a matter of speculation, but I fancy the reader will have an idea or two.

Not a non-issue, as he says. Not an immaterial post, as he says. Did I mention he was aggressive and uncivil?

• About no. 7, I have no idea what he is saying. I do know it doesn't constitute a response or an explanation or an apology for the evidence. Oh, and I go around defaming people egregiously. Brilliant. Thanks for that.

• About no. 8, I am not denying they are mainstream sources. I do deny that in one case, they "reflect the text" accurately. Please do read the section on the talkpage where this is discussed. . This discussion, which HKelkar participates in, but does not complete, is prior to his reinsertion of the quotes. Accusation count here: bad faith, vandalism. In case you haven't been counting, that takes the total to either twelve or fourteen so far in his brief response. (Sometimes the accusations run into each other.)

• To round it off, in the tradition of this RfArb, he attacks my own behaviour in the past, although that isnt really the subject. See below for that discussion.

Discussion with Kelkar about RfA

However, since he brings that RfA up:

I say that I am "suspicious" as I have not heard the phrase used before WP. (Unlike, say, anti-Semitic.) I avoid saying it is a neologism at this point, though I suspect so. How does HKelkar represent this diff below? Is it perhaps a misrepresentation? I invite the reader to guess.

HKelkar then runs a Google book or scholar search for 'anti-Hindu' and quotes the first few names on it, as

claiming academic authority. .

(Seriously.) When the main thrust of the argument is that of course the phrase is used as an adjective (benzoyl peroxide is 'anti-acne' cream) that does not itself mean that it deserves to be the article title. (Anti-acne as an article rather than "cures for acne".) This was the context in which I stated that several hits will of course come up for it, and give an example of a representative occasion when it is used, together with 'anti-majority rule". Whether this consists of intellectual dishonesty is again, an exercise for the reader. Whether an editor can take this sort of continual attack day after day about points made repeatedly and deliberately misunderstood, is a question I can answer. (No.) Hornplease 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

About TwoHorned's post above: can specific details be removed please? I dont think casual visitors need to know Kelkar's real name, for example, unless he reveals it. (It means his phone number is readily accessible, for one thing.)Hornplease 11:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That was his intention all along.Trying to reveal my information without my consent. It does constitute harrassment and I will take steps accordingly. If I receive any death threats or whatever then I will report it to the authorities. Of course, I will not involve wikipedia on this matter.Hkelkar 11:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

About the Google book search: You're quite right. I apologise unreservedly. I was misled by Kelkar claiming credit for it below: "which I proved again by citing academic sources". I didnt realise that that statement meant "reading off the European names from someone else's Google book search." My bad. Though I would like to demur that that makes me an 'established liar' etc, etc. (Probably because of my well known pro-me bias.)Hornplease 11:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the AfD more caqrefully, I cited more reliable sources like the infinity foundation. You didn;t mention that, establishing that you deliberately skew posts to mislead admins, hoping that they will be too lazy to check the facts or the details. If that is the case, then well, you've won. Anyone of goodwill should hope that the ArbComm is more thorough than that, given your propensity to lie through your teeth.Hkelkar 11:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I didnt need to mention that, as it wasnt brought up in your statement. I supposed you realised it wouldnt be worth quoting as a reliable source, I suppose, given the diff ] you quoted below, which certainly doesnt mention it. The Infinity Foundation is not an academic body. It's run by the well-known right-winger Rajiv Malhotra. Walled garden, anyone?. In any case, it was mentioned in the AfD - by the very editor who ran the Google search - that the phrase 'anti-Hindu' seems to be primarily used by such organisations, if at all. I didnt think it was necessary to overwhelm ArbComm with evidence against you. Thank you for so religiously bringing it up. Hornplease 12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No need. The truth is there for all to see.Characterizing Rajiv Malhotra in this way is a violation of WP:BLP. I could just as easily say that Vijay Sharma is a "left-winger".You can also say that terms like "Anti-Christian" is used by Christian right-wingers, but I notice a rather large article on "Anti-Christian" on wikipedia (and almost completely unsourced to boot). Another double standard that hornplease exploits in his campaign to get me banned.Hkelkar 12:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus, notice how the AfD was overwhelmingly in consensus to keep, despite hrnplease and TerryJ-Ho's desperate attempts to get it deleted. It didn;t work. Are all the users there my "sockpuppets"? I'll bet that will be the topic of the next RfA. All the users who voted keep in anti-Hindu AfD are sockpuppets of Hkelkar! In fact, why not ban all users who ever supported my edits? They are all Hkelkar's sockpuppets. Waah!Hkelkar 12:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, note (a) the tenor of the discussion from Kelkar's end and (b) the fact that he cannot let things go, even after everything has been said. Saying someone is right-wing is not a violation of BLP. In this case, it is relevant in the context of that specific AfD; I explained that context above.

Note also the paranoia: "campaign to get me banned." I have not initiated this, or even instigated it. I have never directly communicated - or never in my memory - with the initiator of this RfArb. I have in the past stated my unwillingness to take bureaucratic action of any sort. I have never sent Kelkar for an RfC, or to AN/I, or to PAIN. Yet I have been running a "campaign", in submitting evidence in response to a request from the ArbComm.

The AfD in question was overwhelmingly to keep. Most of the keep votes said the content had POV problems, but was broadly cited and the subject was notable. I agreed with that summation, but suggested a move, as the title was of doubtful provenance. This was stated several times by me on the RfA page: for example, . Yet the suggestion that I voted to delete ("desperately") is repeated. The case just keeps on being made.

Kelkar, at this point, I suggest you stop trying to respond to all this and digging yourself in further, and get yourself someone from the Association of Member's Advocates before going any further. Hornplease 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice that both hornplease and TwoHorned (similar sounding names, I wonder...) are using the same tactic, using my political views against me. All wikipedians have political views. Yes, I am a Jewish so I believe that Israel has a right to exist.Yes I am opposed to Islamism or Osamaism and yes, I do sympathize with Hindus and Hindu culture. All my edits to the articles in question are sourced and attributed appropriately and I have maintained a neutral narrative in all of my edits. So why this witch hunt against me?I have not violated any wikipedia norms when it came to my persistent edits. If there were any sources that had legitimate issues that were raised I eventually conceded, though I have a right to debate them.What these users plan to do is skew the case against me, get the ArbCom to ban me, then unilaterally delete all my edits, all of which (the ones that stand now) follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. That is all I have to say regarding this matter for now. I suggest that hornplease's inappropriate rants (and my responses) be moved to the talk page where it belongs. Not here.Hkelkar 12:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the (a) crass suggestion of puppetry (b) suggestion of bias (c) suggestion that I have 'plans'. Your political views are not germane to the issue. I have not brought them up at all in this discussion. I agree with the suggestion that some of this be moved to the talkpage; The question of who 'ranted' and who responded, must, I am afraid, be something of a disagreement between us. Hornplease 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Xiaopo

Personally, I don't think the accusations of sockpuppetry are such a big issue, since as has been pointed out, User:Shiva's Trident (who is supposed to be User:Hkelkar's sockpuppet, or vice versa) hasn't been editing for some time, and there's no evidence that one of the accounts was used to circumvent a block on the other—assuming that they are sockpuppets (all the evidence presented so far has been circumstantial, and IMHO fairly weak). I think this is really about edit disputes and interactions between users, and that's what I'll focus on here. I haven't had much interaction with any of the parties here excepting Hkelkar and Bakasuprman, so this will mostly focus on my encounters with them. Nevertheless, I note that users on both "sides" have long block logs, that most articles they get involved in seem to devolve into edit-warring, protection, and general messiness, and that many people have shown an inordinate fascination with (and skepticism of) Hkelkar's Jewishness, which, IMHO, is inappropriate.

Furthermore, I've seen some improvement in Hkelkar's behavior, and he's done good work, especially on Poverty in Pakistan. I hope this whole mess will encourage him to devote his energies to such things.

Essentially, what I'm trying to show here is that Hkelkar and Bakasuprman are difficult to work with. I realize that's a rather vague assertion, but I'm using it as a blanket term for inter alia reverting legitimate edits (and refusing to discuss them), labelling sources and users they disagree with as "Marxist" or "terrorist-affiliated," and taking gratuitous potshots at political views they disagree with. I'll take these in order. Onward, then!

Hkelkar (talk · contribs) and Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) are revert-happy

1. On 27 September 2006, in the article Indo-Aryan migration, I changed the words "many scholars" to "most scholars," since that's what the reference given for that statement actually says (and it's quoted in the footnote). Bakasuprman reverted, using popups. I'm not sure what caused him/her to think it was a bad-faith edit, but it wasn't.
2. Here, I direct readers to the edit history of Indo-Aryan migration, specifically the edits from 29 September 2006 to 3 October 2006, which will make things clearer when looking at the diffs. On 29 September, I made a few minor edits, consisting of adding a {{verify source}} tag, correcting the grammar of a sentence, and expanding an abbreviation and . Bakasuprman reverted , with the edit summary "rv OR." After Crculver reverted back to my edit, Bakasuprman reverted again. Finally, when s/he was reverted a second time, s/he edited a sentence which referred to determining the date of the Veda by using the Zend Avesta (sourced to a book by JP Mallory), changing a "Therefore" to "According to Marxist historians" and marking his/her edit as minor . S/He then got involved in a revert war, and after two reverts, Hkelkar stepped in, reverting back to Bakasuprman's version, with the edit summary "rv. The Avestan assertion is made by Romila Thapar, who is a self-confessed Marxist." Again, the section in question had nothing to do with Romila Thapar. Hkelkar was reverted (and reverted back, in turn) two more times, and when it was pointed out that the sentence in question was sourced to JP Mallory, he reverted a third time , with the edit summary " is a contributor to Marxist periodicals." However, he was reverted again by Crculver, and made no more edits concerning that statement, having exhausted his three reverts. Then, two days later, on 3 October, Bakasuprman reverted back to Hkelkar's version again, in the process removing another grammar correction . However, s/he was reverted, and that was the end of that nasty episode. What I'm trying to show from it is that these two editors were far too enthusiastic when reverting, using popups and marking controversial content changes as minor, and getting into revert wars and making unfounded assertions against a scholar whose work they didn't like when challenged.

Hkelkar (talk · contribs) makes unnecessarily combative statements concerning people he disagrees with

For instance, he complained to Vkvora2001 that his views on Poverty in India are "fodder for Pakistani ISI agents and other liberal socialist India-haters and Indophobes" and then mused that he ought to start an article on the "Self-hating Indian" .

Furthermore, he shows a propensity for labelling groups that disagree with him as "terrorist fronts" or "controversial." For instance, he added a phrase calling Friends of South Asia "a controversial group mired in accusations of being an anti-Hindu group," with the edit summary "rv. Context is needed per precedent with White Nationalist orgs on wikipedia" .

Indeed, my first encounter with Hkelkar was when I made a few edits to Californian Hindu textbook controversy . Hkelkar repeatedly reverted using popups, and objected to my adding a link to FOSA's website to illustrate the article's claim that they disagreed with some of the edits . There were of course already links to the HEF illustrating which of the edits they agreed with, but Hkelkar asserted on various talk pages that it wasn't the same thing, since FOSA "is known to have terrorist connections" (citing the Misplaced Pages article on Friends of South Asia—which says no such thing—as evidence) and insisted that while the Hindu American Foundation's website was a reliable source because it was a registered non-profit organization, FOSA wasn't because it "has Pakistani members who are affiliated with terrorism." The discussion on the talk page is worth reading, where FOSA is accused of "pure hate speech" and it's claimed that they're being investigated by the Department of Homeland Security. His comments above that forced censorship is a "common practice among libertarians" is a good case in point: it really only serves to bring more heat than light to the discussion.

Evidence presented by Freedom skies

I would once again like to express my personal opinion that Hkelkar and Shiva's trident are two different people. I have worked with both of them and have awarded a barnstar to Hkelkar due to the excellent quality of his recent contributions to articles related to the Indian subcontinent.

The evidence submitted to ban the user thus far has been, again in my opinion, inconclusive and weak. This is keeping in mind that HKelkar has stated that he knows Shiva's Trident in real life. As for the cases of being combative and acting improperly, editors like Terry j-Ho and BhaiSaab have made inappropriate comments as well, which have been documented above. When one speaks things like this and this and goes on to speak in extremely tasteless tone that "Evidence showing that Hkelkar is a Hindutva POV posting machine" they hardly have the moral authority to advocate banning a user for being combative.

My interaction with Hkelkar has been good and User:Bakasuprman, another editor who has come under fire here, helped me against a sockpuppet which had been giving me a hard time. In my personal opinion again, users getting banned due to nominations by other users who are'nt angels themselves is extremely heavy handed action. Especially when the user nominated for a ban (in this case, HKelkar) has excellent articles to his credit and has shown passion to devote time and work actively on wikipedia. Thank You.

Freedom skies 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.