Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Street Scholar (talk | contribs) at 10:56, 10 November 2006 (→Just wanna make a few comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statements by non-parties moved to talk page

Statement by uninvolved Shell Kinney

The list of involved parties frequently shows up on WP:PAIN and other admin noticeboards to report each other for various violations. I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, not as sockpuppet confirmation, but to take a look at the conduct of these disputants. Shell 09:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by CltFn

I have been requested to provide a statement regarding this case , particularly as regards my knowledge of user:BhaiSaab conduct as an editor in Misplaced Pages. I have no experience with user:Hkelkar. I have found user:BhaiSaab to be an extremely vindictive and disruptive editor who spends a great deal of his time wikistalking other users that he disagrees with, edit warring and outright harrassing them to no end , likely in effort to drive them off Misplaced Pages. It does not surprise me that user:BhaiSaab is continuously involved in conflicts with other editors. It is my experience with user:BhaiSaab that he will resort to every possible stratagem in an effort to bring down other editors that he disagrees with , and he has done so successfully with a number of editors. user:BhaiSaab has been trying to bring down User:Hkelkar for quite some time now, albeit unsuccessfully. --CltFn 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Commment by Ideogram

A MedCabal request was filed here. It may provide some useful background information. --Ideogram 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Freedom skies

I have worked with User:Hkelkar in the past and I do not believe that he is a sockpuppet of anyone. In my opinion, HKelkar has contributed immensely to wikipedia and has effectively restored NPOV in many articles where if not for his involvement, it would have resulted otherwise. In addition, he has been involved with improving the quality of many articles relating to the Indian subcontinent.

As for working on the same article, myself and User:JFD have worked extensively on the same articles. Since the both of us have a pattern of working on martial arts related articles.

HKelkar too has a pattern, that of working on articles relating to the Indian subcontinent. He may find many users supporting his POV and consequently get accused of being a sockpuppet or a puppetmaster due to two (or more) users having the same ideology. It has happened to me in much the same way (see here) and turned out to be a false alarm.

Concluding remarks: I've worked with both editors and just because they have converging interests does not mean that they are actually the same person. I would second User:Syiem and say that Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry in general, is greatly abused. Thank you.

Freedom skies 02:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Rama's Arrow

I would just like to say that this case is of much importance for South Asian editors. There is no doubt that an ideological/religious rivalry defines the involved parties. It is pleasing that ArbCom has accepted this case because I feared for a while that these editors would get involved in open "warfare" on religious lines. While it is important not to make judgments based on facts and not generalizations, I recommend that ArbCom send a very strong message to all involved parties on edit wars and user disputes of a religious/ideological nature. Many of those involved have not made explicit offenses, but they do often bring their POVs into their editing and interactions. Without a strong message, another series of edit/user wars can erupt involving some of these very parties.

I would like to speak in favor of Bakasuprman. He has proven himself to be a very productive editor. His only flaw is that he feels a sort of loyalty to Shiva's Trident - based on pro-Hindu POV. There is also no doubt that he carries a pro-Hindu bias. But he has worked very well with me, Ragib, Raj, Lost and others. He has done a lot to contribute outside controversial topics. Many of his contributions are made with a view of improving the coverage of Hinduism-related articles but often in response to existing Islam-related topics. His participation on WP:CFD debates shows a desire to protect Hinduism-related content in regards to other religion content. While there is nothing wrong about this approach, I fear some provocation in the future might lead to transgression of policies.

While Dbachmann, Dmcdevit and others are very correct in reprimanding him, this editor only showcases why ArbCom needs to make a "line the sand" regarding editing on religious/controversial topics with a POV-bent. He has a lot of potential but must understand WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. He is not a troll or ideologue, but there are some risks that a loss of temper will exacerbate. Rama's arrow 22:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanna make a few comments

Actually, I was editing the Cheema article and Hkelkar and he started littering the topic with {{dubious}} and {{cn}} tags you can see the talk this section particular also see this section he also never responded here after I proved the books. He also accused me of Personal attacks I asked him to provide evidence but he never did see here thanks. P.S he also claims he went to the university of Texas I have proof for this claim I can provide it at the request of the admins. --StreetScholar 15:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact, the article was disputed material largely because it contained dubious sources (in fact, falsified sources by Street Scholar).I found several instances of misrepresented citations on his partI pointed this out and immediately received a barrage of attacks from Street Scholar. He has a pattern of ethnic baiting of users he disagrees with.Eventually, third party mediation was evoked and the mediator agreed with my assertion. Street Scholar merely ignored him and continued with his fake sources.In addition, the user has a disturbing block log of sexist attacks on lady wikipedians. He got blocked for making numerous mysoginistic statements to a lady admin.He was warned numerous times by numerous users . He eventually got blocked but persisted in making sexist statements on his talk page , then got his block extended, then insisted that his religious beliefs mandated disdain towards women . The admin who blocked him gave him a good reprimand for such unacceptable behavior and was also admonished by several other users . He persists in POV pushing and was even contacted by other users to that effect Hkelkar 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice job with that, am pretty new and a casual editor in wiki so I didn't know how to get the diff, mine and your argument is on a book, and the book is called: "History of the Jats by Ram Sarup Joon" you say this book doesn't exist, but I can prove you wrong the book is right here: Harvard University Library) so accusations about that you have made against me are wrong about misrepresenting sources.

The next issue is you said about sexism, yes I did make those comments I don't deny them I did make misogynistic comments to a female admin I what can I say I had a bad-day. Anyway I was banned for that. You know what they say Hkelkar? "don't do the crime if you can do the time" anyway this is about you, take it like a real man and just admit to the accusations made against you, don't be dishonorable. --StreetScholar 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it has been proved that you are liar before so your citations are suspect. I will, of course, check them (I have friends in harvard).Hkelkar 20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit rich coming from a sockpuppeteer. BhaiSaab 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As a wise man named TerryJ-Ho said, repeating the same nonsense many times does not make it the truth.Hkelkar 07:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar, uses ehtnic slurs this is reason enough to belive he is a racist see diff --StreetScholar 10:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)