Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence/JFD is biased

JFD is Biased
By the way, Sanjeev Bhaskar called. He wants his shtick back.

"So what you're saying is that the sources cited are a load of Kak? *Badum-CHING* Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week! Try the veal lobster, it's fantastic! JFD 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) "

If Huston Smith is microscopic, that makes Subhash Kak subatomic.

Subhash Kak is a living person whose biography on Wikipedia has been violated beyond repair. I have been in constant contact with the man himself since my early days on WP and he is constantly subjected to abuse by JFD.

JFD created this article, which reads Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts.

JFD admitted turning articles into a point-by-point rebuttals.

JFD's articles include "point by point rebuttals" like Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection and Yi Jin Jing. Both of which are gross violations of the WP:Soap and WP:NPOV policies. No reputable mainstream media would of course engage in speculations such as those.

JFD has been polluting the article with ethnocentric Chinese bias which has resulted in staements such as I'm adding a merge tag for now, but this should really be cleaned up and summarized in some neutral fashion asap. from the very nuetral Dbachmann.

In this post JFD has attempted to have both the article deleted even though Dbachmann stated only one article as a POV fork. That one article was JFD's article Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection, which is written in a overly malicious tone and does not have any place on this encyclopedia whatsoever.

JFD also attempts to have Shaolin Kung Fu reverted from this version to this biased version.

In addition, JFD has attempted to have Bodhidharma reverted from the excellent present state to this biased state.

He has been mocking this arbitration process by calling his version "neutral."

I'll ask for the arbitrators to check if they are, and arrive at conclusions independent of anyone's suggestions on whether this user is biased or not.

Also, the very few sources that JFD are demonstrably incorrect. The flaws in the theories were mentioned in an ''opposing theories" section. JFD maliciously manipulated it and tried to disruptively remove every aspect of the contradiction in the opposing theories by engaging in edit warring.