Misplaced Pages

• _{Note that : Much academic research has gone into the efforts by Hindutva supporters to rewrite history with their own approach on what constitutes Indian nationalism - Education, Media And HindutvaThe battle for souls is being fought on Internet sites. The questions of this paper relate to the modes of representation of "other religions" as revealed particularly by Hindu sites, the ways in which Internet sites garner audiences, and the strategies they adopt to link themselves with both global audiences and local groups.Some more are referenced here,}

_{* Note that I have taken liberty in calling HKelkar as a Hindutva POV Posting machine which is probably the only way I could think of somebody that is omnipresent in Misplaced Pages space and time and makes it difficult for the common POV ( non Hindutva ) on WP.My belief is that on Arbitration - one can express more freely than other spaces of WP.}

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: . While I was waiting Bondego's reply (which came a long time after), 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 running 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 and friends 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)

Responses

To Bakasuprman

I am answering to these items pointed out by Bakasuprman.

• ("Sockpuppetry") I said myself that my first login in Misplaced Pages was under the name AlexOriens. I almost don't use it anymore now. I am using instead the TwoHorned login. My last uses of the AlexOriens login was for a perfectly peaceful intervention in the Shivaji talk page and for a regular discussion with someone. The "AlexOriens" name was intented to be a reference to Alexander, who built the bridges between the East and the West. The TwoHorned name has the same signification according to a known passage of Qur'an. As per the Koenraad Elst discussion, the only intersections betwen AlexOriens and TwoHorned goes on 26 and 27 March 2006, and, at that time I had no interactions with people involved in this case. I said myself in the paragraph above that I have used these two logins in Misplaced Pages, and that I use TwoHorned now. All my discussions with Bakasuprman, Hkelkar and other people concerning this case have gone with the TwoHorned login only, never with AlexOriens.

• ("Violation of WP:NOT") Bakasuprman displays an intermediary quotation of mine that appeared in the /Workshop section; the real and final edit goes in fact like this and explains clearly why Bakasuprman is not at all a "collateral damage" of Hkelkar's case. As I explain it, there are three points in my evidence: Hkelkar's sockpupettry, Hkelkar's unfounded accusations of antisemitism, and the most important: this one. I clearly says in the mentionned Workshop section that Bakasuprman is not related to the first two (w.r.t. my evidence), but is clearly a part of the third. Since I have worked mainly on the Koenraad Elst article, it is there that I had problems with Bakasuprman as can be seen inside this paragraph, inside this one, and inside this one. My evidence's title above is clear enough: Hkelkar, along with a group of users... and Bakasuprman falls within that group.

• ("Personal Attacks/Incivility and Vandalism and Lies") Please note the general tone Bakasuprman is still using in this case. And that some of his quotations there appeared in the framework of incivility for which he has warned. I documented my interactions with this user above here, and I have nothing to add in particular.

TwoHorned 11:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To Bondego

• My answer is here, in the /Workshop. To sum up, I wrote a "Controversy" section in the Koenraad Elst page, and some of the assertions put there come from two academics (I wrote the quotations for one of them, and another person quoted a Prof. at UCLA). A long discussion was started on these matters in the talk page, with discussion of the other references.
• Moreover, in the paragraph above, I describe more precisely what happened in the Koenraad Elst article and discussion pages, along with the behaviour still adopted in that page by Bondego as this case it still going on. On that latter matter, I left the following message on Bondego's talk page.

TwoHorned 11:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum

NinaEliza has provided here, along with new and updated interesting evidence about Hkelkar's continued disrupting behaviour, an hypothesis I've always thought of about Hkelkar, but I never dared to state formally, because these are things not easy to prove. I wish the ArbCom will examine that question, for instance by inspection of Hkelkar's contributions' timetable, and to answer the intriguing enigma whether such a timetable is compatible with the workload of a PhD student in Physics in a prestigious university such as UT at Austin. Since August 24, 2006 (the time his contributions began) up to today, Hkelkar's contributions are operated 7 days per week, night and day, with exceptions during the afternoons which correspond to a 8-hour break or so (for sleeping I suppose, and with one single exception on September 3)...

TwoHorned 14:48, 29 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 at the moment 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)

Discussion of Hkelkar's counter-accusations

I would like to point out that I write a point-by-point discussion of Ms. Rosser's letter towards the end of the first linked diff.

The second link in HKelkar's accusations is one for which I am amused to admit I have no reference handy whatsoever at this point. June. What was lying on my desk in June? Perhaps I can check my library records. And ask my friends what I have borrowed from them in the past and to check under "Ayodhya" in the index.

I dont mean to be flippant. It was an error; whatever I was relying on for that information was not put in the article at the time - Subhash Bose/Trident was making about a hundred edits a day at this point, all over controversial articles. An object lesson in sourcing things the moment you out them in, and in the difficulties that having editors like this create at all times. I'll continue to look for where I could have got that from, but it may take some time - it was six months ago. I note, however, the fascinating fact that HKelkar managed to find this little gem, in the middle of a difficult article months before he started editing on WP. I may have to revise my opinions about whether or not he is Subhash Bose, since the latter was definitely involved with the article at the time. Since we're there, and Trident and Kelkar may be the same person, I refer you to this edit, made in the course of manic revision to the Ayodhya page: . Fascinating, in the light of the accusations against TwoHorned elsewhere on this page.

About the various links to the discussion with Bondego, I have nothing to add to the specific points that Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) and I made on that page, and that Dbachmann (talk · contribs) made on that page and on diffs linked from that page.

Does the long - and relatively civil, in spite of the accusations of Eurocentrism thrown at yours truly - discussion bear out HKelkar's interpretation of what was happening? Was "my argument shredded" and was I "increasingly desperate". Perhaps a matter of opinion.

But I specifically state that I do not hold "Hindu and Hindu-sympathetic writers to a different standard" than I do "Muslim or Leftist sympathetic authors". I say On contemporary Indian politics and religious conflicts I refer the writer ... to Romila Thapar, Sunil Khilnani, Ashutosh Varshney, Atul Kohli, Ashis Nandy, Mushirul Hasan, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Srkar, Bipin Chandra, Sumit Ganguly, Yogendra Yadav, Sumantra Bose, Dharma Kumar and Sudipta Kaviraj. All these individuals, most of whom are still active, have published multiple peer-reviewed articles and books, are tenured at major universities in India and abroad and have studied in India and through the Indian educational system. I add that this is a list that I have come up with off the top of my head. A little rooting around the faculties of major Indian, American, English and European universities will produce a few dozen more. This clearly indicates that I have one bar to cross for everyone: multiple peer-reviewed articles and books, or tenure at major universities in India or abroad. Romila Thapar, perhaps India's best-known living historian, is in particular attacked above; the rediff.com link Hkelkar kindly provides mentions a short set of her qualifications, at a time when she was being attacked for holding a honorarary Chair at the Library of Congress. Among other things, it states She has honorary doctorates from the University of Chicago, the Institute National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales in Paris, the University of Oxford and the University of Calcutta. If this isnt the mainstream, heaven knows what is. For an amusing counter to the petition mentioned therein, note , and the number of well-known academics whose names are appended.

Did I "engage in verbal sparring"? If I do, which is an open question, what is certain is that I do not wish to abandon civility, and I can only manage with someone - like Bondego - open to a discussion without making things particularly personal. Choosing to discuss difficult NPOV and RS questions is precisely what we need.

Do I "have a clear pattern of bias and double standards"? Sheesh. See above.

Hornplease 07:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) is an extremely disruptive editor

Using the new guidelines on disruptive editing.

An editor is disruptive when

• An editor is tendentious, where

• • the tendentious editing involves:

1. A history of violation of 3RR; this of course is true, and does not need repeating. Admins will have better access to this history, particularly BLNguyen. (Note: I am not saying a history of being blocked. The standards of a 'revert' seem to be looser here than they should be, as BLNguyen points out above.)
2. Repeated undoing of the 'vandalism' of others. Particularly valid in this editor's case. No change in an article made from a different POV is anything other than 'vandalism'. See diffs ; and on my page , which was a bit of shocker. This does not include the countless instances of edit summaries that state 'rvv' or 'stop vandalising articles' etc, and the oft repeated .
3. Reminding people about WP:AGF: .
4. Accusations or suspicions that other editors are "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts": in this case it takes the shape of a reworking of WP:RS. Consider ( a quick google search of the names will establish which sources are reliable); , to make it clearer; and .
5. Challenging the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it: I wish. More normally, first (marked minor) or (ditto) and then (marked "that was not a compromise in any way").
6. Citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support the interpretation or the inferences drawn: Where, oh where, to start? , where another editor comments "the issue is not source, but interpretations of sources. several of your reverted passages have no support in given links". Those readily available at the moment include: ; ; ; ; . I lose it a little here; and am finally moved to write this. Note these are a few occasions when I have called him on it; that is a fraction of the times he has done it to me, and a smaller fraction of the times that he will have done it to articles I havent run into him on.
7. Repeating the same argument over and over again: well, for just one example, the entire history of the Talk:Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia. Also User:Bakasuprman/Archive8#Categorisation. No pointing posting diffs. Have a look.

• • tendentious editing requires assigning undue weight to a single aspect of a subject: ; ; and many more, but I grow tired, and wish to move on.

• • tendentious editing wishes to Right Great Wrongs: Too obvious. Someone else can fill in the blanks. Zora (talk · contribs), perhaps? Her remarks.

• the editor ignores WP:V and WP:OR: Consider first the entire set of miscitations given above. Also, for a representative example of synthesis, see here.

• Rejects Community Input: OK, he thinks I'm biased. But then consider , from the original writer of the category, whom he has appealed to for support. And , from someone who had agreed with him in the CfD for the cat in question. No effect whatsoever.

• Drives away productive editors: Worked on me. As I said, I've given up on WP thanks to this guy. Also, note T. Anthony (talk · contribs)'s response above ; he couldnt get out of the discussion soon enough. If required, I will detail his numerous low-level and high-level violations of WP:NPA, WP:Civil, etc. I have not mentioned a single one of those above. Believe me, there were many.

Further evidence will be provided on request or when this headache goes away.

Given the diffs above, Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) satisfies WP's definition of a disruptive editor. Hornplease 08:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

May I say in advance that my response to Bakasuprman's consequent Righteous Indignation, Terrific Fury and Copious Self-Justifications will be minimal. For health reasons. Hornplease 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Bakasuprman (talk · contribs)'s counter-accusations

As stated, I will not make a point-by-point rebuttal. Fortunately the quality of the accusations do not make it strictly necessary. A good job has been done of framing an argument out of the limited material I had provided, but, naturally, some misapprehensions have crept in, and some sleight of hand was required. I would be happy to set them straight.

The 'incivil' section starts off with diffs to Talk:Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia and related pages, which I had already linked to. I will remind the reader that my assessment was agreed with by Aksi_great (talk · contribs), who had created the cat, and T. Anthony (talk · contribs), who polices other similar cats. Also note that I use the words 'public ceremony' in the same sense in which the word 'public' is used in public sector. Perhaps the words 'state ceremony' will be more evocative. In either case, participation in such a ritual is insufficient to count as public self-identification. Participation in the state rituals of the Church of England did not mean that Isaac Newton self-identified as a believer in the Trinity. That is the nature of public religion, and coronations among them. This was the point I made at length. When I believed that it was not getting through, I went and asked for a third, and then a fourth opinion. This was the best I could do for WP:BLP, then a very new policy, under the circumstances.

Moving on, this diff is supposed to contain "an attack on another user" and an implication that "we all were stupid". I cant find an attack on a user. Merely a response to the very loaded statement "Indian passport doesnt make you Indian. Respect for Indian culture makes you one." To this I reply that many Indians would dispute that statement, and express my puzzlement that a user who chooses to publicly self-identify as English would choose to make that remark, as it would create a contradiction. Oh, and most certainly do not imply that anyone is stupid for talking on SlimVirgin's talk page. I clearly state that you were all, Terry-J-Ho and HKelkar included, humorless.

Most other diffs presented need no further explanation; I particularly love the one that is presented as evidence of my incivility that begins with a plea for civility, and in which the objectionable phrase is "Also, dont lose your shirt. If you have put work into editing the article, and your edits are sourced and NPOV, the work will not be lost." Brilliant.

The 'get a blog' statement took me aback at first, as it certainly sounds most inappropriate. Fortunately, a look at the diffs clarifies matters: The user, who was no longer a newbie, but it emerged was still feeling his way around WP policy, posted to the talk page of that article enormously long pieces about how Indian consciousness depended on more than the countours of outmoded nationalisms that political scientists studied. There were paragraphs on the talk page about the Indian army and computers and the user's family, who were diplomats. When I came across the anger in such statements as .."This is not an article about what Indians can feel proud about" version of Indian nationalism is an absurdity that I'll make sure will not happen, at least not on Misplaced Pages. It's just a fact.. and the desire to put in statements like The number of IT engineers is still greater than the Indian National Army and the economic upsurge has made a greater difference to the conciousness of an Indian than the Two nation theory and AIT put togather., I felt that the user needed to be reminded of WP:NOT. If the sentence ..But, fortunately, that is irrelevant, for, it is also a violation of WP:OR, and thus has no place on wikipedia. If you wish to discuss these issues, thats what blogs are for, and I urge you to express yourself there... is a violation of WP:Civil in that context, then I express my surprise. Again, read the whole talkpage. Or skim it.

in another diff that follows, we are told that I call Bakasuprman 'churlish'. ...avoid words like 'uninsightful' and 'obstinate'. Makes you appear churlish, which I am sure is an impression you do not wish to leave...." is a direct quote. I think no further explanation is necesary. And here we are told I call HKelkar 'temperamental': ..Could the fact that you have been asked to justify your edits on a few pages have caused you to make that statement? Remember, any edit you make, you should be prepared to defend without losing your temper...

More serious accusations:

'Misrepresentation'. I look forward to this; as this is a serious charge, I will attempt to at last refer to each accusation made in turn.

I quoted Khajuraho on a particular page as an example of an argument often raised as a defence of MF Husain, of the kind that I wished to keep off an unrelated page. I specifically said that I did not have an opinion one way or the other. I am uncertain how that is 'misrepresenting Khajuraho'. Bakasuprman happily came up with the other side of the argument . This was precisely what I personally had wanted to avoid (getting into an argument on the talkpage about something at a tangent to the article subject.) This was also not a reply to the point I had raised, which was that there were points on both 'sides', and that introducing one side on the article page would lead to the other being introduced at some point, to the detriment of the article, since the subject was tangential. I indicated I was uninterested in getting into an argument because I didn't want an argument, and that there existed the possibility of an argument (currently on the talkpage, but hypothetically on the article page) was precisely my point. I note that Bakasuprman thinks that Nidhshinghal had 'enough' to 'prove' something or the other. Nids himself was more reasonable. .

I'm not sure what the accusation is at this diff that is linked above .

The Anti-Hindu VfD is discussed by me at length in conversation with Kelkar. is quoted by Bakasuprman as an example of me holding on to the claim that the phrase was common mainly among extremist groups after it had been falsified by HKelkar. Firstly, that was the first time the claim was made. Secondly, as I discuss above, in my opinion, HKelkar did not falsify it.

The JLS case is brought up again as misrepresentation this time; I refer you to my remarks earlier.

And my violating WP:BLP in this diff? How? In heaven's holy name, how?

On my 'accusations':

Err. nothing to say here. Please do read the linked diffs. If possible, also read the context in the pages. Finally, re-read the commentary provided on the diffs by Bakasuprman above.

On 'vandalism': This basically refers to my efforts to keep the Brinda Karat page from descending into a long discussion of a single statement, which is a minimal part of that person's career; there was a serious lack of balance in how the subject was approached. See another editor's view on Bakasuprman's claim that the vast majority of Indians had a particular opinion. About my use of popups, it was an unfortunate error; I myself frequently come down hard on people for reverting without an edit summary. Note, however the sequence of edits before that: by Baka, marked 'minor'. A revert by Soman (talk · contribs) with the comment "OR?". Baka, a week later, does not address the fact that the controversial word is uncited but makes further edits that further distort political reality - describing members of a party in competition with another as 'firmly tied' to each other. Both that and the earlier word 'most' remain unsourced. The single 'source' that is added is for an additional quote that adds nothing to the story. One week later I check in on the article and discover this. As the controversial statements remain unsourced, and it's a living person biography, I revert it. I dont think there's any mystery here.

A final word. Bakapurman says "his attempts to try and bully me backfired with him deciding there was no market for his POV on wikipedia". I'd just like to say that when I expressed concern to other editors about POV in India articles and would ask for help they said - BLNguyen in this case - "don't try to fight the POV-pushers by yourself." At times, it appeared that nobody else was around. I stuck it out a lot longer than a lot of people; there were names in edit histories as three months ago that you don't see any more. Towards the end, all my time on WP was taken up by these long discussions where I tried to maintain my civil demeanour as best possible in the face of some quite outrageous rudeness, the kind of thing that would cause one to terminate conversations in the real world. Little or no actual editing was getting done. When I realised that even the long discussions were fruitless if even after them policy was simply ignored, and nobody would step in ("Oh, that just happens in India-related articles"), then one might as well leave.

Bakasuprman repeatedly brings up his new articles and his 'DYK's. (Frankly, I don't even know what the latter are, or if they're difficult to do.) Let me make it clear that I have always thought he can be a productive editor. In my early interaction with him - and I seem to recall that I was almost the first person to write on his talkpage - I invested much time in discussing with him where he might be going wrong; I invested this effort precisely because of his productiveness. I made a similar effort with Subhash Bose (or Trident or Kelkar). Many editors - Nirav (Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs)), for example - had similar early histories and have since become pillars of the project. I clearly failed with this editor, but cannot see how anyone could have succeeded.

It won't be the first time in my memory a productive editor is, on the whole, a threat to the project because of his tendentiousness and disruptiveness. This guy's just subtler and more energetic than most of the others.

Thank you for your time, and I apologise for my emotional little peroration.

Hornplease 12:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A few recent diffs have been added to the counter-accusations by Bakasuprman above; they link to User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington#From HKelkar.27s arb., a continuation of a discussion with another editor from the Workshop page. I urge the reader to glance at both sides' comments in their entirety; again, I fail to see how it qualifies as evidence against me.

Additional accusations have been made about my role on pages such as Sajjan Kumar. No diffs were provided. A cursory look at the history of the pages will explain this reticence.

Also, it appears that Bakasuprman has both here and on the Evidence page inserted a defence against accusations of tendentiousness by stating that WP:DE cannot apply to actions committed before it became a guideline. That is something for the ArbComm to decide; I would imagine that, like other WP guidelines, it serves as an identification procedure, and thus is applicable for the purposes of analysis of a user's editing pattern. The same edits apparently classify otherwise uninvolved editors (Aksi_great (talk · contribs) and T. Anthony (talk · contribs)) whom I quote above as additional community input as 'POV-pushers', which is, I fear, characteristic. Hornplease 09:10, 27 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 Aksi great

User:Hkelkar and User:Subhash bose/User:Shiva's Trident are the same person

This point has already been mentioned by some users. I will not repeat what has already been said.

• Hkelkar and Shiva's Trident (ST) started editing using the same ip. Much has already been said about their universities, isps etc.
• Hkelkar and use the same email id. I will not put the evidence linking the 2 here as it has already been given to the arbs. Hkelkar refutes this by saying that he had run out of names to use, but I leave it up to the arbs to decide how credible they think the explanation is.
• In this chat when Srikeit asks Hkelkar what his IP is - he replies with "kaise pataa lagaoun?" which translates to "how do i find that out" in hindi. ST goes on to teach Hkelar how to do so. But we see a totally different form of Hkelkar here who goes on to explain things about computers that only advanced users of computers would say.
• Above all, Hkelkar and ST edit the same set of pages. As Hkelkar has already said - "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." That looks like a violation of wikipedia policy on meatpuppetry.

All this adds to a pretty strong case against Hkelkar. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by NinaEliza

I first encountered Hkelkar when I responded to an RFC on the RFC:Articles page concerning Indian Buddhist Movement. The RFC was written by Hkelkar].

I read the entire article, the entire talk page, and posted a lengthy point-by-point analysis entitled "Response to RFC"]. The article in a nutshell concerns the occurence, particularly in October of this year, of a large number of Indians who have converted to Buddhism and taken the "22 vows", which were first used by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The 22 vows unequivably rejects Hinduism in the vow-taking person's life. This page was created by User Nat Krause in April of this year, and was subsequently edited by several different people.

I have never posted on HKelkar's talk page, nor has he on mine. I have deliberately never addressed HKelkar personally on the Indian Buddhist Movement talk page. He has addressed me personally exactly twice. I am basing my assertions entirely on Hkelkar's behavior in edits to Indian Buddhist Movement, and on Hkelkar's interactions towards other users on the talk page for Indian Buddhist Movement.

To date, I have never edited this article, though I would like to. I feel that this is indeed a very notable topic ].I also feel that's it's very important to have a fair, well-written page on this. I'm in the process of getting some of these books, and will not edit until I do so.

User Hkelkar is a Disruptive Editor

Hkelkar made his first edit to the Indian Buddhist Movement article on September 19th of this year. That day he made 10 major and/or extremely controversial edits, all in the span of 21 minutes]. Since they are all in a row, you can jump from one edit to the next using this single link. If you choose not to, let me say that among his edits are two POV tags, two WEASEL tags, and the addition of the phrase "anti-hindu" throughout the article. He posted nothing on the talk page for this article at that time (CORRECTION: it is unclear from the diffs and page history when the talk page quote below was actually made- either the 19th or the 20th). The note on his very first edit to the page is this:

"removed unsourced POV. Keep out hate speech or I WILL file an RFA)"

On October 20th (the next day),User Dhammafiend made two edits after this]]. Hkelkar reverted the article using a popup]. On the same day, he posted this on the Indian Buddhist Movement talk page:

This article is, as it stands, complete hatemongering nonsense. It is full of unsourced rubbish and weasel words. I am warning all parties that if they persist in using wikipedia as a soapbox to express false views and tout hate-speech I will bring admins into this matter and file a full request for arbitration. Please cooperate to build an objective and useful article that presents the facts without POV.Hkelkar 07:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Indian_Buddhist_revival"

The post above is HKelkar's second post to the talk page. This is his first post]. Since his second post, Hkelkar has very rarely deviated from the tone above on the talk page. In fact, I feel that by far his most "Wiki" (polite, assuming good faith, etc) post has been directed towards myself]. That statement, however,was in response to what appearedto be a show of support for his actions. It also followed this statement], and is therefore rather contradictory. This is the sum total of our interaction.

He has also very rarely deviated from the behavior described above in his editing. He has made 17 reversions to this article since September 20. Three instances were "edit wars" that came just shy of 3RR. After two reversions, he removes the content manually. The most recent evidence of this reversion process are also the most recent changes to this article - from November 12 to November 18]

Currently, Hkelkar almost immediately reverses the edits of all editors -except one from Nat Krause (who changed the title from Indian Buddhist Movement to Indian Buddhist Revival) - all without any discussion first. He labels good-faith edits (irrespective of their merits) as vandalism. His actions in response to my analysis (ostensibly written at his request) were minimal, ands it's highly debatable whether or not these edits were done in good faith. Furthermore, his expressed interpretation of my RFC response (which is also minimal)is extremely selective.

In my opinion, his behaviour has resulted in several editors (on both sides of various debates) leaving the project. This is evidenced by the fact that not a single editor responded to my RFC statement until I went to four editor's talk pages, informed them that I had made a response, and specifically invited them to comment on it. I chose the four editors because they appeared to be least disruptive, yet were on both sides of the debate. To date, only two of the four editors I invited have responded, and none of the other editors who had previously been active on the page have posted anything, save for Dhammafriend, and more recently, SriLankaBuddhist.

User HKelkar uses popup reversions inappropriately

"*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"

The above quote is from Hkelkar's Evidence on this page.

I invite you to consider whether or not this edit] or this edit] are good faith edits or acts of vandalism.

These reversions happened on November 12 and November 17, respectively.

Indian Buddhist Revival/Movement: Hkelkar Edits and Discusses in Bad Faith

It is my strong belief that user Hkelkar actually came to this article in bad faith. The below passage represents Hkelkar's third post to the discussion page for Indian Buddhist Revival/Movement in it's entirety. I have bolded certain passages and phrases in order to highlight and/or discuss further.

It continues to amaze me how these "self-styled Buddhists" tout ideals of Dhamma, Ahimsa and Shanti (faith, nonviolence and peace) and then go right around and express the most bilious (and, quite frankly, mentally diseased) hate and bile against millions of Hindus who are perfectly happy with their faith and who make no attacks on Buddhism, and, point of fact, REVERE the Buddha as a saint. In Bihar, there are millions of HINDUS who visit the tree of enlightenement to pray to it, and these "Buddhists" attack them. These people pervert the teachings of Buddha and exploit the political situation in India to fester bigotry and hate against Hindus in order to further their ambition. I'm sorry if this sounds polemical,but these people frighten me more than the Islamic terrorists who bombed trains and murder women and children. It's like those so-called "Buddhists" who applauded Zia-ul-Haq when he ordered the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus in Bangladesh and then went right around "Ahimsa" and publicly declared that Hindus do not deserve the same rights as others because they are "animals who deserve to get slaughtered". I appeal to these chauvinists to keep their views to themselves and not SOIL wikipedia with hate-speech and nonsense. This article has the most WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations that I have seen on wikipedia so far and statements that, if made in countries in Europe (with stringent hate-speech laws) would land them in prison like David Irving.I am NOT a Hindu and have no partisan bias when I say this, but there is no ideological difference between the touters of anti-Hindu hate and Joseph Goebbels, who demanded that millions of my people be shoved into ovens and murdered.Hkelkar 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)]

In regards to the final bolded statement, I invite the arbiration committee to consider the article as it stood before Hkelkar made ANY edits].

This is how the article stood the day Hkelkar posted this statement, and after he had edited the page. Please note in particular the addition of the following phrase in the section entitled "22 Vows" by Hkelkar. The bolded word is my edit:

These 22 vows are important as they evoke traditional Anti-Hindu stereotypes and canards about the caste system as part of Hinduism. It illustrates the anti-Hindu nature of the movement.

The first bolded statement ("mentally diseased" hate and bile), in my opinion, is not a personal attack per se but a general attack on the credibility of more than one editor. Furthermore, I personally find the use of this characterization to discredit the work of other editors to be extremely offensive with respect to my own status as a mental health consumer.

I feel the rest of the post is self-explanatory in it's support of my belief. If not, I would be willing to take the entire post apart point-by-point, in addition to providing another post that also supports this belief (also dated September 20). I will only do this if it's deemed necessary by the arbitration committee. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if this is the case. NinaEliza 00:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User Hkelkar makes inflammatory comments

After reading the "Workshop" for this Arbitration, I felt it important to list some of the most inflammatory statements made by Hkelkar on the user talk page for Indian Buddhist Revival/Movement. The bolded words in this section are my edits.

• In fact, all this laughable content that was put there by a truly "tendentious" editor serves to demonstrate the cultish nature of this so-called Indian Buddhist movement.Like any cult, they deny the truth about Buddhism being a primarily non-Indian religion and try to establish writings by obscure writers (to most Buddhists in the world) as some sort of canon. This is exactly the kind of attitude held by the Mormons or the Scientologists.Hkelkar 18:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)]

• The claims made in the caste-barrier section are all unsourced and, quite frankly, read like the proselytization of a preacher (Dhamma-thumper?). Provide cited sources to establish reliable statistics, or the section also gets axed.Hkelkar 20:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)]

• And you accused me of being "offtopic". Lol! A fanatic is easy to spot. Dhammawhosit can preach hatred all he wants. He just needs to keep it off wikipedia.Hkelkar 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)]

• So you do admit that Ambedkarite pseudo-Buddhists make special reservations for Hindus, which, in on itself, is a racist attitude held by the Ambedkarites.Hkelkar 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)]

• As far as Buddhism is concerned, well, Neo-Buddhism is not Buddhism at all, but a cult of sociopaths disguising themselves as Buddhists who are trying to gain political mileage in India by inciting communal disharmony. The caste system can be whittled out, but through social reform, not through "religious conversions". The Dalit situation will only get worse with conversion as that will solve nothing and only give them a false sense of accomplishment while the Neo-Buddhist cult cashes in on the publicity assiduously.Hkelkar 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)]

• Your "symbolic" argument is typical liberal socialist dialectic and does not gel with the facts."Symbolic" means nothing unless the people "Symbolizing" have a deep-seated hatred for Hindus. Then the "symbols" mean something only to those haters and bigots, not to reasonable people. The Neo-Buddhist cult have done nothing productive at all. They are like the scientology people in America. They clain to advocate for a better way of life but all they do is take your money and run.Hkelkar 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)]

• Egalitarian", eh? Sounds like Socialism to me! How many people have socialists murdered in the 20th century? Stalin's genocide of the Kulaks, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" and "GReat Leap Forward" caused millions of deaths, Pol-pot, Lon-Nol, and now Kim-Jong-Il. Egalitarians have caused more deaths than all the religions of the world put together in the 20th century. No thanks. Let the Americans bomb them all. they can rot together with their friends in al-Qaeda.Hkelkar 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)]

• That having said, I do not agree with the original poster that this article is "useless", or that dalits are turning "anti-Hindu". The anti-Hindus are the bastards who are running the show.Hkelkar)]

• Anti-Hindu attutides above are based more on hate and, I suspect, jealousy over losing jobs etc. to Indians than any legitimate criticism.Hkelkar 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)]

• I disagree with Holybrahmin that "there is no Buddhist movement in India". I have personally seen Buddhist pilgrims going to the Holy tree of enlightenement in North India. While it is true that the Buddhist movement is weak, it is not nonexistent. Having said that, I must qualify that the editors POV-pushing in this article are NEO-Buddhists, who are a fringe movement within the larger Indian Buddhist movement and are essentially a cult along the lines of scientology or Jews for Jesus in America. Basically they CLAIM to be Buddhists but, in fact, are not. They have a political and cultural agenda behind their activities that has very little to do with normative Buddhism.Hkelkar 18:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)]

• symbolic defiance to oppression"? By becoming Christians? Look at Christianity and anti-Semitism, Christian Fundamentalism,Christian Identity,Aryan Nation,Ku Klux Klan,Spanish Inquisition,Goa Inquisition,The role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust. Some "symbol, eh"?Hkelkar 09:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)]

As I stated before, these are SOME of the MOST inflammatory statements made Hkelkar on the talk page for Modern Indian Revival/Movement.

NinaEliza 05:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC) PS I am in the process of adding diffs, but I need to get something to eat first.

Done.NinaEliza 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I submit this:

Arbcomm has to understand that these Neo-Buddhist whack-bags have been getting away with this for MONTHS without any sysop doing anything about them. In the face of such a barrage of insults, PA's and tendentious edits, it is no wonder that I lost my cool on some occasions.Hkelkar 07:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)]

This, along with several quotes from other users (who he calls my friends), is currently the sum total of Hkelkar's response to my evidence.

I apologize for exceeding the 1000 word limit. I appreciate your patience.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 09:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If it would be helpful to you to have further contact with me, please email me. I will no longer be participating in the arbitration, or on Misplaced Pages. I wish the project all the best and have every confidence that it will reach all of it's goals.NinaEliza 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User Hkelkar and myself

On November 24th I decided to leave Misplaced Pages and posted a notice on my talk and user page to this effect]]. As I was transfering some articles I had worked on and saying my goodbyes, Hkelkar and a user I had never seen before named Kris (or Srikeit) began to have a discussion on the Indian Buddhist Revival's talk page about deleting the article altogether on the grounds that it was not a genuine religious movement and not notable enough to warrant it's own article]]]. This showed up on my watchlist, and I was compelled to post that whether it was a religious movement or a form of socio-political protest, it was notable . I then had an exchange with Hkelkar that led to me posting the names of 6 books, their publishers and date of publication, authors, and ISBN numbers on the talk page itself].

By the end of this exchange, I resolved to stay and fight for the sake of this article. I also resolved to stay and fight for the sake of the article that Hkelkar suddenly authored called Kherlanji Massacre. I won't get into what this article is about, because it's a painful subject for both Indians and Humanity in general. Suffice to say that the story absolutely must be told accurately, fairly, and delicately.

Since I gave my evidence in this arbitration, I have watched Hkelkar's edits whenever I could. He has been extremely busy on several pages relating to his chief interests. He's made over 250 edits since November 24th], including a notable edit war at William Dalrymple(historian) with an admin named Doc glasgow]]]. Hkelkar has archived the various warnings he recieved on this matter, but I felt Doc glasgow's final comment speaks highly of him as an admin.

I've known for a couple of days that Hkelkar had asked for a continuance on the agreement that he ceased to edit anything other than his user page. I thought someone would catch him, but he not only continued, but had conversations with at least two admins during this time - one of whom was well aware of this arbitration, as evidenced by his contributions in this matter. I finally decided I had to confront Hkelkar. On November 27, I posted this on his talk page, and posted a copy of it on my own:

You continue to vigorously edit despite your own WORD

"Hkelkar, who is an advanced student of physics, has requested a continuance extending from November 24 to December 19 during finals. He has agreed to not edit outside his user pages during this period. While a continuance and continued evidence are arguably futile, see Misplaced Pages:Snowball clause, as the suggested remedy is a one year ban, a continuance is granted suspending further action until December 19.

 +  
 + :Support: 
 + :#Fred Bauder 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 
 + :# I dislike continuances in general, but this is tolerable. Charles Matthews 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ]

I can't stand by any longer. At first I thought I would just quietly alert your advocates in email (which I did), but this is beyond the pale and beyond what even I can stomach. Since no one else seems to either notice or care, I will say it myself. I am furious that you would have the unmitigated gall to stand before the committee in your own arbitration pleading "finals" while simultaneously, contstantly, vigorously, and practically up to this very minute disregard your own word.

In addition, I assert that any admin who has communicated with you during this time is complicit in what you are doing. I find it hard to believe that the admins in question have no awareness of your pledge.

Since I've let the cat out the bag, I'll let another cat out as well. I've looked at the evidence suggesting that you are sockpuppet of user SubhashBose (or whatever). It is my belief that not only are you his sockpuppet, you are impersonating an actual person named Kelkar, who is indeed in his "advanced physic finals", but far from you. I also believe his English is faulty, that he's a friend or aquaintance of yours, and that he gave you permission to do this. He is the one speaking in the IRC chat that Aksi cites, not you.

I can't describe how personally odious I find all of your actions to be. I'm not one to whine to authority figures about another person's behaviour, but believe me, I will whine like a stuck pig if you add a single coma outside of this page.

I am done with you." NinaEliza 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)]]

A user I've had no interactions with posted a response on my talk page to my post]. Helkar follows this response with this comment and an NPA warning]. Helkar then posts this ]. The editor who made the first response posts this ]. Then, User Hkelkar posts this:

Hi Nina

Hi. I was wondering, based on your declaration in the user page about being a mental health consumer, if you're bipolar. I've had my own share of depression during my undergraduate years (and sought successful treatment) so I sympathize with your situation. If that is the case, then I can understand that you did not mean to attack me in your last post to my talk page and that was probably your symptoms talking. If you ever feel emotionally overwhelmed then send me an email or post a message in my talk page and I can provide moral support. Hkelkar 17:30, 28 November 2006 ]](UTC)

When I discovered these posts today, I copied the original post and pasted it on the Administrator's Notice Board]. Martin23 (one of Hkelkar's advocates) responded by stating the feeling he had (from Hkelkar's response to an email he sent) was that Hkelkar got the dates mixed up]. Whether that means he got the dates of the agreement wrong, or simply didn't know what day it was when he made over 250 date-stamped edits, remains to be seen.

I honestly don't know what else to say. I stand by the statements I've made here 100%. I think if I really wanted to, my submission of evidence would only be limited by my own fatigue, or general disgust. NinaEliza 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

12/4/06 - Indian Buddhist Revival and Kherlanji Massacre

As much as I'd love to do battle with Hkelkar and his fellow editors, I have a job and have to work.

This is the way the article Indian Buddhist Revival (now redirected, with no request for input, to a page called Dalit Buddhist Movement)looks today:]. The page history (briefly interrupted by an editor who futily tries to protest named Pkulkani)is here:]. The page is now located at Dalit Buddhist movement. utcursch | talk 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Kherlanji Massacre (which, believe me, is truly horrific by any human standard) looks like this ]. This is it's page history:].

Hkelkar is working in concert with an Editor named Ambroodey, who was apparently called out of retirement by an editor named Dangerous Boy (or D-Boy). It appears I have a new "friend". NinaEliza 02:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a few bad faith assumptions right there. Hkelkar 06:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bondego

BLP violation by 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 (or no sources at all). This is a violation of WP:BLP, which is strict about sources that attack BLP. I and other editors have pointed this out to him many times. He still insists on sources like the the Zydenbos Angelfire site. He has also made allegations without any source. And he also uses Renee Guenon as a source (who died before Elst was born), and he used the talk page as a source, which he referenced in the article itself. All this he defends in lenghty discussions on talk pages. 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). And the result is that the BLP violation problems cannot be addressed.
• 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!) --Bondego 10:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Itsmejudith

Hkelkar makes unfounded accusations

For edits I made to the page V.T. Rajshekar, which I was trying to wikify, as I contribute to clearing the backlog of articles for wikification, Hkelkar accused me of “whitewashing anti-Semitism”. After I asked for clarification he also accused me of anti-Semitism in edits to the History of the Jews in Italy article, another article in need of wikification.

He apologised after User:Basawala intervened to tell him that he had been incivil to me

However, following that he made a sarcastic comment on my talk page.

Much more recently Hkelkar modified my user page – apparently a user box was badly placed. I thanked him for doing this. I also noted that on his user page http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Hkelkar he makes accusations of racism against fellow editors. I took him up on this (gently) , but he tried to justify it. I have no opinion at all on the user that he mentions but I don’t like to see such comments on user pages. It doesn't give casual viewers confidence in the "assume good faith" policy.

While researching this evidence, I have just found out that Hkelkar recently went to user:HumusSapiens accusing me of “whitewashing” on the article Dalit Voice. I am quite shocked by this because I thought that in spite of our previous run-ins he was now willing to work constructively with me. Of course I can justify my edits to that article and would have been willing to do so on the article’s talk page, which I watch. We have very different views about what makes a reliable source in Misplaced Pages but I have always done my best to explain my thoughts in full and listen to his explanations. There have been some other exchanges, e.g. in relation to the writer Koenraad Elst whose work I don't generally regard as a good source in WP, but I have only mentioned the most relevant ones here. Itsmejudith 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Srikeit

User:Ikonoblast (previously User:Holywarrior) is disruptive

• There are many occasions where he has warning-warred with users, especially User:Hkelkar -,

• He has made baseless allegations against wikipedia admins like Blnguyen, Ben. W. Bell, JoshuaZ and Shell Kinney - , , , . He feels that any admin who opposes him has some vendetta against him. This behaviour is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.

• Ikonoblast (block log) and his previous avatar Holywarrior (block log) have been blocked a total of 6 times for incivility, disruption, warning-warring and 3RR.

• • Arbiters must ask for comments from neutral admins, Indians (belonging to the same cartel) may not be one of them. Ikon |no-blast 12:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • • I still give these blocking admins to justify their block.All of them has almost admitted their fault , however blnguyen failed to do even that. I wd also ask for exemption from any admin action by indian admin ; whose case I will present shortly and their indirect involvement thru IRC channel sd be investigated.  Ikon |no-blast 12:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • It is nice to hear you complimenting the 23 Indian admins we have here on enwiki. Gizza 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Basawala

User:Hkelkar makes unfounded prejudiced accusations

Hkelkar has made a few nasty accusations against me:

1. "Looks like the ji(had)g is up." Here he cleverly places the word "jihad" inside "jig", making a veiled personal attack against me. He tried to deny that this was even meant to target me, but due to an admin, Hkelkar later made an apology at the same time admitting that this was an attack.

The reason Hkelkar accused me of "jihadism" was because I placed an NPOV tag on Indian caste system, I indeed did explain on the talk page that the Muslim section seems to overstress the caste system, which is not as strong as the article claimed it. For this small reason, the "j(ihad)g" attack was very unfounded, especially since I am neither Muslim nor biased in my editing.

Stop harassing users.--D-Boy 21:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I request an explanation why you think I harass users, and specifically whom you belief I harass; I believe strongly in being civil, neutral, and nice, as some of my userboxes state. Also editing inside another user's evidence section is not allowed, refer to to top of this page, especially not such a strong accusation. Mar de Sin 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:AMbroodEY

User:NinaEliza acts in bad faith

Though I would like to desist from turning this Arbcomm into a slinging match, I'd like to reply to some of the accusations hurled at me by NinaEliza. She has been leveling baseless allegations.

As much as I'd love to do battle with Hkelkar and his fellow editors, I have a job and have to work. Misplaced Pages is not a battle ground. We are all working in co-operation. As I see it, its not us v/s them for me.

This is the way the article Indian Buddhist Revival (now redirected, with no request for input, to a page called Dalit Buddhist Movement)looks today:486. The page history (briefly interrupted by an editor who futily tries to protest named Pkulkani)is here:487.

The article was originally titled Neo-Buddhism which is by far the more common name for the Buddhist sect in question. Dalit Buddhist movement. ]It was aparently moved to "Indian Buddhist revival" by self-identified missionaries from the sect. I tried to engage Nina in a discussion over the article talk page Talk:Dalit Buddhist movement/Archive 1; she simply ignored my arguments adding that the discussion should end there. Claiming that the title of the article (Indian Buddhist revival) reflects the self-identification used by the followers of the sect (without giving credible sources ofcourse).

User:NinaEliza has formed an impromptu cabal against HKelkar. Off late, she has been of late tracking contribs of some users (Kelkar, D-Boy, New Rock Star, Aniruddh77) User:NinaEliza/Links. Such cherry picking of diff's obviously shows Bad Faith on her part.

As for Kherlanji is concerned her detailed comments can be found here. Despite her claims and sweet talk, Nina does have a strong POV. She is too quick to jump into conclusions and for groups. If she has any problems with my edits she has NEVER brought up the issue with me, even though she finds time to plaster malicious accusations against me over random Misplaced Pages projects.

Whats more, I believe she is deliberately bringing up Kherlanji massacre on this page (she hasnt provided links to problematic edits) only to paint me and HKelkar as caseist users.

Hkelkar is working in concert with an Editor named Ambroodey, who was apparently called out of retirement by an editor named Dangerous Boy (or D-Boy). It appears I have a new "friend".

Her prejudice is self-evident. I repeat I am not working for or against anybody.

User:NinaEliza may have edited Misplaced Pages under other username

I base my accusations on the fact that Nina shows amazing familiarity with Misplaced Pages and its functioning for some who has registered just four weeks back. She has been too quick to form groups. In short her manner is certainly not of someone new to Misplaced Pages.

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood 09:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any idea of who she may be a sock of? Gizza 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)