Revision as of 07:43, 20 November 2006

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for continuance by Hkelkar

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

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

Hkelkar 12:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral Point of View

1) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Civility

2) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, and to observe Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette, Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:Writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Assume good faith

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

(Sigh.) Agreed. Hornplease

Comment by others:

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

Edit warring is harmful

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Sockpuppets

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Disruptive editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yours Hkelkar 17:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Ban due to disruption

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by TerryJ-Ho

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing by Bakasuprman

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Provocative behavior by BhaiSaab

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Copyright violation by Shiva's Trident and Bakasuprman

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Bakasuprman is not anti-Muslim/Christian/Buddhist

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See "Statement By User NinaEliza" on the Evidence page.NinaEliza

Hkelkar's edits show signs of bad faith

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

BhaiSaab's edits show signs of bad faith

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Hkelkar is a sockpuppet of Shiva's Trident

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Provocative statements by Hkelkar/Shiva's Trident

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Provocative statements made by User:TwoHorned

1)TwoHorned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made provocative statements with an intent to solicit emotive responses. Some of his statements below are also clear-cut personal attacks.

• "Bakaman' IQ is on the downside, apparently. :)" here
• Characterizing Users as "Hindutvaadis"
• Calling me (User:Hkelkar) "bozo" thrice in edit summaries one two three
• WP:BLP violation of living person Koenraad Elst
• " ... extremely pathological behavior of Hkelkar"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

More provocative statements by BhaiSaab

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Hkelkar

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skepticism by TerryJ-Ho

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Sockpuppets

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

False accusations of antisemitism made by Hkelkar

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

BLP violation of TwoHorned

1)TwoHorned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated BLP.

• Since January 2006, the user Two Horned (who is the same user as AlexOriens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), has edited the Koenraad Elst page. Almost the whole talkpage is filled with his very lenghty discussions. He appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view.
• He claims on the talkpage that Elst is associated with "right-wing neopaganism" (which obviously can be interpreted as Nazi mysticism). "Oh, I'm pretty sure you have nothing against new agers, Elst loves them very much, mostly when they indulge into european right-wing neo-paganism (we have so beautiful forests in Europe, if only you could see what's happening in there...).
• He connects in the BLP article Elst with the "extreme right", and says that Elst's has sympathies for the extreme right. This all despite the fact that Elst has often written against fascism, nazism and anti-semitism.
• He uses forum posts and personal homepages as a source for his attacks on BLP, which is a violation of WP:BLP, which is strict about sources that attack BLP. I and other editors have pointed this out to him. He still insists on sources like the the Zydenbos Angelfire site. He has also made allegations without any source. Users get frustated when they want want to insist on WP:BLP with this user. (For example, I replaced the source from a forum post with a source from an article by Elst himself, and TwoHorned uses this as evidence against me on talk pages and on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence) It is very hard to keep in line with WP:BLP with this user (see the very lenghty discussions and his contributions).
• He connects Elst with "political extremism" and makes unsourced allegations.
• He writes in the article Dr. Koenraad Elst is known for his sympathies for the extreme right, and provides an Angelfire site as a source for this BLP violation.
• He has also deleted a section that shows Elst's stance against fascism.
• Writing that Elst had a leftist past (which was well sourced from Elst himself) is for TwoHorned the same as "whitewashing Elst from his well known political affiliations". (which per above must be extreme right!)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Agree. Hkelkar 04:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Almost no party of this RfAr is neutral

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BhaiSaab

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Hkelkar and socks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

BhaiSaab is placed on revert parole

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Hkelkar is placed on revert parole

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: