Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

Case Opened on 02:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration.

Involved parties


See also:
 * Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar
 * Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
 * Elaborate discussion at ANI
 * Current permalink

Statement by Rama's Arrow
I submit this request for arbitration over an issue that is complex and ugly. It recently came to my attention that Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy and Sbhushan were colluding with the banned Hkelkar via e-mail. Much of the evidence was sent to me by user:AMbroodEY. It later came to my attention that was involved to a degree in recruiting and protecting them. The conduct of these individuals grossly violates the spirit and letter of this committee's ruling in Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Consequently I took action against Bakasuprman, Sbhushan and Dangerous-Boy. I did not act against AMbroodEY because he was helping in fighting the cabalism. I also did not act against Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington because I didn't receive the evidence until recently. The question may be asked - what is the validity or relevance of off-WP activities? The answer is that collusion with a banned user is a gross violation of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT as well as the rulings of ArbCom over the activities of Hkelkar. If off-WP evidence points to the fact that other users are working with a banned troll, it is indeed a subversion of ArbCom's decision and Wikipedia's policies. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to the Wikipedia community and the arbitration committee over the display of private e-mails. Unfortunately, it is fairly easy to diminish or dismiss e-mail evidence but as the committee and much of the community is aware, off-Wikipedia interactions have a substantial impact on what happens on Wikipedia - even Jimbo Wales founded an off-Wikipedia IRC channel for better administration. If one can rely on IRC for better administration of on-Wikipedia issues, why can't off-Wikipedia evidence be admitted as legitimate evidence to stop violations of policy? We are not a law enforcement agency and neither is the ArbCom a court of law - we have no established investigation process or standards for evidence so we must work with what we can get. Evidence based on e-mails exchanged is an important weapon in stopping violations of Wikipedia policies. There are several precedents in which e-mails played a vital role in exposing sockpuppetry of users such as Shiva's Trident/Hkelkar. And do we expect meatpuppets and sockpuppets to be so stupid as to give on-Wikipedia evidence of their activities? One would naturally expect a banned user to communicate via e-mails, for he does not have access to editing Wikipedia, nor does he want his sockpuppet to be detected.

The case I am requesting the committee to investigate is not about personal disputes, mudslinging or rivalries against other users. I was given administrative tools with a great degree of support from the community, which I have done my best to redeem. I will venture to say that the question at hand is not about me. The summary of the issue is this - I obtained e-mail based information that Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy, Sbhushan were interacting with Hkelkar about Wikipedia business, discussing ways to tackle Dbachmann and some explicit strategies to subvert Wikipedia. It is true that I had to enter this ring and interact with a few of these users before I could obtain the evidence. I would like to thank AMbroodEY for providing me with this evidence so this ring could be exposed. These users should not have been discussing these issues with a banned user, and especially not ways to tackle other users or ways to subvert Wikipedia. Another administrator was found to have been providing tacit support for sockpuppetry and recruiting meatpuppets - he is not foolish that he will provide on-Wikipedia evidence of his activities. If the committee decides to ignore or reject off-Wikipedia evidence, it will effectively permit the normalization of meatpuppetry and violate its own rulings over banned users, as well as violations of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT, WP:EW, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and WP:CIV/WP:NPA. D X-Rama's arrow (are u ready) 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What my friend Konstable is conveniently forgetting is that Hkelkar is an active sockpuppeteer. If Bakasuprman is discussing other users, content issues and strategies to take advantage of the system with him, it is advice for Hkelkar to use over a sockpuppet, which may then escape the scrutiny of the community - remember User:Rumpelstiltskin223? Nobody could be convinced that it was indeed Hkelkar for a long time. And if Konstable's attitude is valid, then I request permission to unblock user:Shiva's Trident and user:Hkelkar, who were identified as sockpuppet(er) based on the email they sent with the same email address. Yeah sure, they slipped up, but does one expect such buffoonry to be repeated? If Baka is permitted to advise Kelkar how to game the system, it effectively permits Kelkar and Baka to violate the committee's ruling on Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. It permits any Wikipedia user to exchange advice, instructions with banned users, who can then create effective, long-lasting sockpuppets as they will be able to game the system better. The ArbCom is not a court - it is a body setup to do its best for Wikipedia. So I suggest it stop behaving like a court and understand the reality that if "gaming the system" off-Wikipedia is permitted, then its function and the preservation of policies is practically useless. D X-Rama's arrow (are u ready)  13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And it is not just off-Wikipedia evidence that is the basis of this case. There is a substantial amount of on-Wikipedia evidence which I will present if/when this case is accepted and the proceedings begin. As far as breaching any law regarding e-mail privacy, I was sent these emails by a user who was the primary recepient. Willful transfer of emails is not a problem, especially when the parties are situated in the US, India and UK respectively. D X-Rama's arrow (are u ready) ;; 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for continuance
I request the arbitrators to grant continuation and hold-off on opening the case until May 18, as three involved parties - DaGizza, Aksi great and Sir Nicholas - have exams and cannot participate until then. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SBhushan
Sorry of long statement, the reason will become clear as you get to end. Rama’s arrow (RA) accused me and few others of sock/meat puppet on April 22 and banned me indefinitely claiming that I had done "editing for his purposes as proxies" (banned user Hkelkar). RA has confirmed in his statement above that there is no evidence of "editing for his purposes as proxies". RA claims that he has emails which show Hkelkar requesting people on mailing list to do some edits, it is very easy to confirm that I have not done any edits that Hkelkar requested. As I showed in my note on ANI, this is my history of edits [] and this is Hkelkar’s history []. There is no common pages between us. As a side note to admin who declined my unblock request, this 5 minutes check is all that is required to see if the charges against me are accurate. My question to ArbComm, since RA has confirmed that his first accusation is baseless, what penalty will be imposed on RA for his action. Also, RA has already demonstrated that he is selectively using email evidence and doctoring some of it.

More on selective using evidence and doctoring it; this is to clarify some of the claims made by RA against other people. I did receive emails addressed to few participants since about March 24th; Dangerous Boy was one of the people in the address list. During all that time I did not see even a single email from Dangerous Boy to that mailing list. Similar thing regarding Bakaman, he answered question when a specific question was asked. I have the emails sent to me since March end, on question of sharing those emails, my values/convictions are not for sale. There are few other people on those emails who shared their frustration about DBachman and I see no reason to share any private discussion in public forum. But one thing is clear that RA is selectively sharing emails and doctoring the evidence. If a confirmation is asked from me of what was said in any specific email, I will confirm the content without sharing the original email.

RA’s current accusation of cabal and collusion against Dbachman, with time and effort I can find enough evidence to show this is also game playing and politicking that RA is doing. Some evidence that is already in open; (1) the cabal was setup by AMbroodEY and the original members included DaGizza []; (2) DaGizza, helped by AMbroodEY, solicited Hkelkar and encouraged subversion of Wikipedia (AMbroody posted the email earlier, interestingly both of these people were not charged by RA – game playing???); (3) RA was aware of the cabal since Jan 2007; (4) I was not part of the arbcomm regarding Hkelkar. Some evidence that is not in open (1) I was sent an email on March 24th by DesiGeek; I have no way of knowing this person is Hkelkar; (2) I did not seek any cabal; my name got added to the list since DesiGeek was aware of my email address (I had turned on that option earlier). The question for me is do I want to spend the time and energy to fight this meaningless accusation.

Next is question of root cause of the problem, some people shared their views on DBachmann in that mailing list, since all of us have been frustrated due to his behaviour. Please see the welcoming note I received from Dab [], can you see the number of WP policy violations in that single note. Since Nov 2006, I have tried every single suggestion on WP to resolve the dispute. When I can to ArbComm, my request was rejected. At this point are you wondering why I am frustrated. Someone else on that list does not edit any article because of Dab. Few people have left WP due to Dab. The question to ArbComm is would Dab’s behaviour be discussed as part of this. If you don’t fix the root problem, don’t try to ban free speech. Also expect something similar in few months again, since Dab is not going to stop.

Dab and few other users work in tag team to do POV pushing, evidence of this is on Wikipedia. Should this cabal be addressed too? Everyone here makes claims of improving encyclopaedia, isn’t enforcing WP:V evenly on everyone the best way to stop POV pushing and improve quality of controversial articles?

Last the reason for this long statement, this ArbComm request looks like a witch hunt. In any good witch hunt, it is already decided who is going to be burned on stake; only thing left is a good excuse. So my personal decision is that unless ArbComm is going to address root cause of the problem, this is my last contribution to Wikipedia. Thanks for reading and please go ahead and block me permanently.Sbhushan 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Priyanath
Please excuse the length of this statement. I’m not familiar with how arbcom works, and when to present statements and evidence. It appears that this case is likely to be accepted. Before accepting any evidence, I’d like to ask the arbcom members to consider whether to disallow some or all of the email evidence.

The emails that were passed on to Rama’s Arrow by other involved parties, and then presented as evidence, would not be accepted in any enlightened court for two reasons. One is that the lack of clear chain of custody makes the evidence unreliable. I understand that arbcom is not a legal court, but it does appear to follow some legal protocols in order to protect abuses, and to follow some rule of law to guide its decisions.

The other reason is that legally acceptable email evidence, by my limited understanding, is typically understood to mean emails received directly by the person offering the evidence. There are too many ways to change text files to make forwarded emails reliable evidence. I believe the emails passed on to Rama’s Arrow should not be allowed as evidence.

The emails that Rama’s Arrow received directly are a different story. They are more reliable, but why were the ‘suspects’ sending them to him in the first place? It looks like he was performing some sort of freelance sting operation to entrap other editors. Is this something that Wikipedia wants to encourage? By accepting this evidence, arbcom would be giving tacit encouragement to other admins and editors to start their own future sting operations. The erosion of trust and assumption of good faith would be terrible, and an extremely unfortunate precedent for Wikipedia.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m not an uninvolved party. Like Sbhushan, I was invited to join this group of editors being accused of ‘cabalism’. This happened around April 9. I received a few emails, and sent one email of my own. I believe my invitation resulted from my willingness to stand up to dab and his incivility, page owning, and intimidation of other editors (and even other admins, such as Bhadani). The one email I sent to the group addressed that issue.

I had no idea at the time that one member of that small email group was a banned editor, known as Hkelkar, who I’ve never had any interaction with. I did know that one of the people on the ‘cc’ list was Rama’s Arrow. I assumed that since a respected admin was involved then there was nothing wrong with discussing general Wikipedia ideas via email. When I learned that one of the recipients was a banned editor, I decided that this approach wasn’t for me. Also like Sbhushan, I consider private emails to be just that – private. Trust and free discussion are both lost when we start sharing private emails as 'evidence' against our fellow editors.

The email list shows that Rama’s Arrow was either involved himself, or that he was operating a rogue sting operation. In either case, therefore, I believe his evidence should not be allowed, for the reasons I stated above.

My own involvement had to do with extreme frustration at what I see as admin abuse, page owning, and extreme uncivil behavior by dab. Sbhushan has expressed the same sentiment, and I know the other editors involved in this case have also. If this case proceeds, it must include dab and his own version of a cabal. The question of possible incivility and POV pushing by Bakasuprman, AMbroodEY, Dangerous-Boy, and Sbhushan cannot be discussed without opening up the entire can of worms surrounding dab and his compatriots. I don’t understand how the breadth of an arbcom case is decided, and when – so I hope it’s not too soon to ask the committee to expand the scope of this case to include dab and his behavior, assuming this case is accepted. &mdash; &#2384; Priyanath talk 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dangerous-Boy
First, the posting of a private email is a serious breach of privacy. The fact that RA read a personal letter without the consent of the people to whom the letter was addressed was uncalled for. Then, it was posted on wikipedia for the world to see is a rape of privacy in itself. This was unacceptable behavior conducted by admins RA and Dagizza.

Second, I was blocked with no evidence shown to me before. The action was initiated without any warning at all, and no serious explanation was provided, and no opportunity given to me to defend myself on ANI prior to the block. I was blocked based on a spurious accusation of meat puppetry by RA, based on purely circumstantial evidence, each of which I can refute point by point. Furthermore, there was no Arbcom and no RfA before the imposition of this block, as is the norm on wikipedia. This was demonstrated during the recent RfArb concerning a cabal of extremist Pakistani Nationalists/Islamic Fundamentalists who were subverting the encyclopedia with partisan propaganda and making conspiracist allegations that bordered on the paranoid. see: Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan

My spotless record on wikipedia (prior to this incident) speaks for itself. I have never been blocked before for any infraction of wikipedia rules and policies. I have never edit-warred, vandalized, or trolled any articles or talk pages. I have diligently performed numerous bureaucratic tasks (adding cats to articles, welcoming new users with special templates and so on). Thus, the possibility that a well-established editor is being deliberately maligned needs to be considered by the people.

The sequence of events that led to this fiasco was nontransparent (in on itself against core wikipedia philosophy) and was apparently conducted off-wiki by RA and DaGizza.

I intend to demonstrate that since a group of wikipedians did not conform to their systemic biases, they should be banned swiftly and as covertly as possible within the bound of wiki-process. This, once established, would indicate that the admins in question have gone against the core principles of wikipedia as founded by Jimbo Wales, which are transparency and a semblance of due process. This goes against the pledge that the two admins have sworn to uphold and constitutes an extreme abuse of power which should be dealt with immediately.

To reiterate the objections to email correspondence cited earlier, emails can be forged with relative ease, including full headers. The only way (that I know of) to categorically identify the authenticity of an electronically unsigned email is through the records of the SMTP server that sent it, and that is not accessible to wikipedia arbitrators.

I intend to demonstrate that daGizza has exhibited systemic biases against the accused for not conforming to his methods and ideas and thus, his non-partisanship in this matter being questionable, renders his submitted evidence questionable. Furthermore, there was no response from me on this alleged email. All it shows is a person who allegedly engaged in a series of communications. User:Sarvagnya raises a valid point. There is no evidence against the accused that any action was carried on the subject of the email at least not by this citizen. A crosscheck with this user’s contribution list and a check user will confirm that no malicious actions have or had taken place in history of this citizen’s residence at wikipedia. Therefore, the actus reus has shown that there is no guilty mens rea which exonerates this user from prosecution and blocking by the coconspirators, RA and Dagizza.

The people should also be aware that RA feels that he must prevent people from communicating with each other in their daily lives. Not only is this unacceptable behavior by an admin, it infringes on a person's fundamental rights vis-a-vis his activities on wiki.

RA is living in United States of America in the commonwealth of Maryland as stated on his user page. The state attorney of Maryland should be notified that not only did RA release a private email to the public; he violated a person’s privacy, and committed a serious civil right’s violation. The people should know that I will not be seeking legal action no matter the outcome of this Rfa.

As for Dagizza, not only has he compromised the integrity and reliability wikipedia through his partisanship,  he has posted a message on my talk page mocking and taunting me. He stated that I should admit my guilt to a crime which I did not commit. I cannot admit that I am a meat puppet when I never took part in such actions. The people should additionaly note that Dagizza is a founding member of this so called cabal as stated by user: ambroodey. He has not only helped in the founding the cabal, but he actively asked for help from it. He repeatedly engaged in collaboration with banned user Hkelkar asking for help editing, edit-warring, and voting on numerous South Asian issues.

He also gave advice on what to do to swing the articles again to his POV. It should also be noted that dagizza stated he would not take part in controversial issues in the near future.

Truly, Brutus, with his dagger, has caused the death of the republic. He thought he was slaying a tyrant but in effect, he destroyed what he wanted to save.

It should also be noted that dagizza stated he would be not taking part in controversial issues and has been suffering with real life issues. 

The people have heard the case against the accused. A possible fabricated, forged, and sensationalized email provided by unprincipled admins, RA and DaGizza. seems to be the root cause. I trust the people will again the crosscheck this citizen’s contributions, edit history, and check user. No action was taken from that email. My edit history speaks for itself. I have heavily lifted the Hinduism section of wikipedia out of nothing when it was a complete mess and no cared about it. I started up the Indian military history project. I have done nothing but good for the welfare of people’s encyclopedia. Never have I vandalized. When a consensus is taken, I follow it. I may speak rashly during a few discussions but that is only for the glory of the encyclopedia.

Therefore, the following motions are proposed:

1. This case should be dismissed based on the evidence given by the accused since action cannot be tied to the intent and a clear breach of privacy.

2. A complete unblock of this user and his block log should be cleared. My good name has been dragged through the mud because of this abuse of power and should redeemed and such slander should not be tolerated. RA and DaGizza should then proceed to issue a personal direct apology to me and the people on my talk page for this travesty. I feel at this moment through this painful process like Alan Moore when he stated during his testimony that he would better treated had he "molested and murdered a busload of retarded children after giving them heroin."

3. RA and DaGizza should have their admin privileges immediately revoked and placed on six month blocks under the charge of abuse of power under color of authority. What they did was wrong. Let me state again, they did not go through Arbcom and Rfa before the block. There sole accusation was meat puppetry for Hklekar. The process was unholy not transparent for the community and the accused and was done probably off-wiki probably through the use of email itself! Even a suspected criminal is innocent before proven guilty. They have together caused the death of the republic and like Cicero and Brutus they should honorably pay for their crimes.

4. Hkelkar should be unblocked for participation in this RFA. His testimony is crucial to this case since he is accused of being the origin of this conspiracy by these reckless admins.

5. User: Hornplease should be notified of this RfA and a statement given by him since he has clearly prejudices against Bakasuperman. Even now, he is editing articles that he had problems with baka about.

6. An investigation into dab’s activities should be conducted by an impartial neutral third party and his admin powers suspended since there seems to be genuine grounds of suspicions and concerns on his performance, action, and bullying of other users.

I trust the people will realize the witch-hunt that is being committed here today by these two admins and they will exonerate the accused, redeem their good names and penalize RA and DaGizza to the fullest extent.

I’ve been at wikipedia for a very long time. It is a pity to the see the people’s work degraded this way. I agree with Sbhusban, that unless ArbComm is going to address root cause of the problem which is the abuse of power by RA and Dagizza, this is my last contribution to Wikipedia. Salud! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Statement by Bakasuprman
The evidence provided by Rama's Arrow does not implicate anyone in undertaking any alleged orders from hkelkar. Do you think I'm stupid enough to take advice from a user with 15+ blocks? Hkelkar in fact did not keep me in the know about his sockpuppetry. After the debacle, I stopped dealing with/advocating for new "Hindu" editors. His edits have been unwelcome from my standpoint and I urged him to cease sockpuppetry, as did AmbroodEY. The reason I dislike his editing is that he disgraces the other Hindu editors on wiki, who always are treated badly due to the Rajput fiasco and afterward our buddy. If POV matching is grounds for "meatpuppetry" there would be many users blocked. I had criticized Rama's arrow before on blocking users he had prejudices against here, against (who I placed evidence against at arbcom), and Rama did not seem to take the suggestion to heart. His fiddling with my block, and wheel warring have been annoying as well, as I worked hard after september 06 to not get blocked and to become productive.

Much evidence circles around an email discussing "extenuating circumstances". Rama is correct, the block was the extenuating circumstance, and though I did nothing wrong I used those words under duress in the hopes that I would be unblocked quickly. Its a parallel situation to 2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel in which the British sailors were forced to confess as they were being threatened and attacked. The email can therefore be dismissed as invalid due to the obvious extenuating circumstances surrounding it. It is in essence a state made under coercion and duress.

The emails do not involve me discussing hkelkar, dbachmann, me discussing with hkelkar, bhadani, rama;s arrow, or any other topics alleged to have been discussed by Rama's Arrow. Since I never addressed hkelkar in any way during the emails I sent to the mailing list (or "scheme"). I did not scheme with hkelkar in any way, esp. because I did not form the email list nor did I form any cabal.

I have provided a valuable service in foiling hkelkar by flagging all new editors that edited Hindutva, India, and related topics with welcome statements, thereby easily allowing editors concerned about his malignant sockpuppetry to checkuser these "new editors", some of whom have become real editors (scheibenzahl) and some of whom were actually socks of hkelkar (too many to count). Infact, many hkelkar socks would have never been found but for my vigilance on these topics and my extensive watchlist. I knew hkelkar had descended into the role of abusive sockpuppetry (after seeing about the 2nd or 3rd checkuser, it was plainly obvious that he was a Willy on Wheels, Cardreader, etc clone) but was not aware which accounts he operated. Again I reiterate I have not been kept in the know about his hundreds upon thousands of accounts.

There is nothing to conceal here: I was sympathetic to hkelkar when he was on wiki, I am sympathetic to Hindutva, I was on an email list that involved hkelkar, but I never discussed with hkelkar on said list, nor did I scheme with him, since I did not attack dab with the filing of an RFC/RFA/anything as the emails suggested. If hkelkar was the "leader of the ring", then I was committing insubordination (by not carrying out his wishes) and was obviously not up to his standards, otherwise he probably would have stopped socking. Hkelkar is his own persona and self, and I am an eccentric user who prefers to work alone.

Other issues being conflated with alleged meatpuppetry are incivility problems that users opposed to my worldview invent. Those are properly dealt with an RFC, and mediation, not with an arbcom, since there is no consensus on such allegations.

In light of this blatant abuse of admin powers, breach of trust, and misrepresentation of evidence, I have grown alienated from the topics I love to edit on wikipedia, and will not be active in the near future. Baka man  01:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Aksi great
I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to settle all issues for once and for all. We have already seen 2 ArbCom cases over the Hindu-Muslim issue resulting in 6 users getting banned. There is another ArbCom case in the voting phase and now this. Bakasuprman was involved in both the cases but due to many other distractions, his edits never came under the ArbCom scrutiny. There are many cases where I have seen these users involved in tag-team editing. In some cases, none of them would have edited the article previously but would suddenly come and start reverting. I have cautioned, warned and blocked many users on both sides of the various disputes so many times that I no longer consider myself a neutral party. This is the case with almost all the admins who were willing to mediate in these disputes. Rama's Arrow has some compelling evidence in the form of emails. I understand the problem of taking only emails as evidence. But you must correlate those off-wiki discussions with on-wiki activites.

For example see the history of the article Indian mathematics. I came across the article when I discovered that it was being edited by Hkelkar through a sock called India Rising. I blocked the sock indef. At that time Hkelkar was involved in a dispute with User:Fowler&fowler. To my amazement, soon after I blocked Hkelkar, User:AMbroodEY, User:Freedom skies and User:Bakasuprman, all started editing the article and revert warred with Fowler&fowler. That dispute was finally resolved through an RfC. I had sternly warned AmbroodEY over that incident. As I have many "Hindutva" articles on my watchlist and I have seen this being repeated at many places. It is time to bring a stop to this.

One more thing - Many of these users cite their dispute with Dbachmann as one of their main problems. I do not feel that all of Dab's actions were noble, but it gets tiresome when people cite the old "shithole" diff again and again and try to bait Dab. Also, I find it amusing that Bakasuprman has found a novel way of tagging Hkelkar socks - though welcome templates. Quite an innovative way of telling admins that he suspects someone to be Hkelkar. As an admin who has tracked, caught and blocked almost all Hkelkar socks (Dmcdevit will vouch for this) I am putting it on record that Bakasuprman has not played any role in catching Hkelkar socks other than vigourously defending some socks.

Once again I urge the ArbCom to accept this case and examine the behaviour of all parties, articles and disputes involved in this complex case. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Nicholas
I will be very busy till the 16th of May 2007, as I have final-term examinations then. As I have said before, I completely refuse to accept the evidence that RA posted on ANI or elsewhere. Evidence would be produced on the abovementioned date, as I would be busy studying till then. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  07:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Scheibenzahl
I have been added to this arbitration. I was blocked by RA due to some evidence he had, which, didn't involve me in any serious matter. Thus, I have been unblocked and the charges against me are taken back. Thus, I would like to remain out of this arbitration. I have nothing else to say. I like writing, which gives me the satisfaction of creating something. During my stay, I have started detesting banning people for long term, probably grown more and more naive in these years. So, I would like to opt out of this case. In any case, I am quitting. I may not be available for comments. Thanks for understanding.

If there is a procedure about block logs being cleared, I would definitely like to opt-in! :) --Scheibenzahl 21:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, due to my roots plus \me being partially on the "other side" of the POV, I have been target of many uncivil comments and in general bad faith. Thus, I would like to remain anonymous. Thanks again for understanding.--Scheibenzahl 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dbachmann
This is merely the last round of a drawn-out debacle. I do request the arbitrators digging into this do take some time to do it properly: this is not something that you can unravel at a glance. And not for the first time, I urge the arbitrators to recognize the underlying problems involved here, and try to find some framework how to deal with these problems more effectively. The alternative is an endless repetition of time-consuming arbcom cases, all alike.

The problem: we have a heterogenous and fluctuating group of editors collaborating off-wiki, with the single common characteristic that they are to a greater or lesser degree indoctrinated by Hindu national mysticist ("Hindutva") propaganda. Some of them simply have strong views, and are here to intelligently document their viewpoint: nothing wrong with that. Some are aggressive or belligerent, some are on a holy mission; some have language problems, some are classic cranks, some are clueless and want the world to know, some are malicious trolls, some cannot think straight for ethnic or religious hatred.

Off-wiki communication isn't a bad thing per se. Yet, since these editors form a sort of fuzzy tag-team, ranking from malicious to merely clueless to just slightly confused, it is very difficult to tell the good intentions from the bad. The incredible amount of sockpuppetry and trolling involved makes clear to any observer that there is a significant problem. The original vision of Wikipedia is that disagreeing parties can meet on eye level and carve out solutions by comparing sources and looking for compromise. Two things are required for this: good faith, and a minimal ability to follow a coherent argument. We have users that obviously lack either one (Hkelkar, Bakasuprman, ...) or the other (Sbhushan, WIN, ...). It follows from Wikipedia policy that if your viewpoint cannot be corrobated as notable, it will not figure: no amount of campaigning should be able to change that. I have wasted fantastic amounts of time simply re-iterating the obvious and well-established again and again, but these are users with no academic background whatsoever editing academic subjects, and they will simply not recognize the state of affairs even if their nose is rubbed in it. Instead of subscribing to Wikipedia policy and attempting to present their fringe position for whatever it is worth with such academic sources as there are, they go "underground", set me and other academically oriented editors up as bogeymen on their mailing-lists ("Dbachmann is a vicious anti-Hindu dominating Wikipedia, we need your help"), and lo and behold, we get waves of new editors who jump into edit-wars from edit one because they have been told to. God forbid they read up literature on the subject, or even care about what we even mean by "literature". This is meatpuppetry (not even going into the fantastic sockpuppetry stunts uncovered every time take Hindutva back to arbcom).

Bona fide Wikipedians shouldn't be expected to put up with this sort of trench warfare. It is the arbcom's job to recognize the problem, ban the ring leaders, install special remedies to quickly recognize returning sock artists (usercheck), and confirm that senseless filling of talkpages without rhyme, reason or citation of a single academic source need not be heeded by serious editors, and should indeed be reverted as talkpage spamming. I have always been overjoyed to debate with users who show signs of intelligence and good faith, no matter whether they disagree with me, but things have gone very far astray from "writing an encyclopedia" here. The arbcom is here to intervene in such cases, and enforce a return to a civilized and coherent editing process. This is the fifth or sixth arbcom case involving Indian nationalists (see User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism). The preceding ones have resulted in punctual measures without improving the overall situation. I do hope the contours of the problem are becoming clearer now and something can be done about it. The alternative is that we will be back to arbcom with another sock disaster and lots of frustration every other month or so. dab (𒁳) 06:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/1)

 * Accept. Kirill Lokshin 22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. FloNight 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I am willing to state that we will not move to the voting phase until long enough for several users to finish their exams, but I don't see that it should hold other users back from presenting their evidence. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I concur with Morven concerning an appropriate delay in the voting phase. Paul August &#9742; 16:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 19:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Aksi great removed as a party
1) is removed from the list of involved parties in this case.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Arbitration rulings
1) All Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee. Encouraging or assisting other editors in violating them is inappropriate, and may result in sanctions.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Private correspondence
2.1) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Copyrights.


 * Passed 6 to 2, 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrators
3) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute. See Administrators, Blocking policy, and Protection policy. Long-term blocks and bans of established users are likely to be controversial, and to minimise distractions due to problems on unencyclopedic matters resulting from this, such actions, especially in complex situations, should be discussed thoroughly prior to such actions being taken. This is to achieve the most appropriate outcome possible and minimise the subsequent conflicts and upset caused by the possibility of later reversals and U-turns.


 * Passed 6 to 0, 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of evidence
1) As the evidence presented to the Committee is unclear in its provenance and veracity, sometimes contradictory, and generally speculative, the Committee is unable to determine whether the various allegations made regarding the involved parties are accurate to any degree of confidence.


 * Passed 6 to 3, 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks by Rama's Arrow on April 22
2) On April 22, blocked,  and , with the reasons given as "meatpuppet of Hkelkar", a banned user. Rama's Arrow cited email evidence which he possessed to justify his blocks.  and  were also blocked, citing a checkuser report by . All of these were of indefinite duration. The blocks were reported on AN/I after they were implemented - Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive233. In such a complex case, a discussion first would have been preferable since the users in question were established editors, and the blocks were likely to be complex and controversial. After some protests, the blocks of the first two users were commuted to six months.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
2) The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin actions between parties barred
4) As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow is desysopped
5) Rama's Arrow is desysopped. He is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time.


 * Passed 6 to 2, 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On notice
7) All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves.


 * Passed 6 to 0, 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary desysopping
1) Any party that violates the ban on admin actions imposed in this case will be summarily desysopped once the violation is brought to the attention of the Committee.


 * Passed 6 to 0, 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * 00:32, 17 July 2007 Newyorkbrad blocked Dangerous-Boy with an expiry time of indefinite (harassment and trolling in violation of Arbitration Committee decision; see warnings and discussion on user talk). On three successive days, this user posted offensive material on his userpage for the purpose of harassing and trolling his former adversaries in this case, in edits that contained specific references to those other users in links and/or edit summaries. The user had been warned to discontinue such behavior both by the Arbitration Committee decision in this case and in direct warnings from this administrator. Newyorkbrad 00:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 18 July 2007, Theresa Knott unblocked Dangerous-Boy (with no objection from the blocking admin) after talkpage discussion in which he agreed to stop posting the disputed quotations. Newyorkbrad 12:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)