Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence/Prune

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Rama's Arrow blatantly abusing privacy
decided to post on WP:AN/I private off-wiki emails sent between several other wikipedians, Rama not being the recipient (I will not provide diffs for obvious privacy reasons). Some of these emails did not have real names removed. Furthermore, Rama's Arrow showed amazing carelessness in posting these on WP:AN/I which is one of the busiest Wikipedia: space pages. As an admin, Rama's Arrow should have been well aware of privacy concerns and the use of WP:AN/I for sensitive information, yet he chose to disregard this.

Rama's Arrow does not understand blocking policy
blocked indefinitely, who had been here for 4 years, with the reason "sockpuppetry" and no further explanation, implying a relation to Hkelkar - he did not care about posting explanations to the blocked user. After Rama blocked his other account, the blocked user protested and said that he was not Hkelkar, but Rama's Arrow still tried to intimidate this user to be for some reason limited to one account - even though no sock abuse had actually taken place! Rama's Arrow then in a horrible mis-interpretation of WP:SOCK (which in fact clearly states that multiple accounts are permitted) re-blocked this user for two weeks for not announcing more widely the use of his second account.

Posting of e-mails
I was the one who redacted the e-mails from ANI, and advised Rama's Arrow of the redaction at this diff:. Private correspondence should not be posted on-wiki, and should especially not be posted on a high volume page such as ANI. Without dwelling on the content of the e-mails, it is clear that they contained sensitive material, a lot of which was unrelated to the blocks made by Rama's Arrow; and, as a result, more discretion should have been used by Rama's Arrow in his decision to release this openly on ANI. He should have realized that posting these e-mails would end up inflaming rather than helping this sensitive situation:. One particular e-mail consisted of a Google Chat conversation between two users that was forwarded to him. Posting this in my opinion is akin to posting IRC logs of private conversations.

My honest opinion is that Rama's Arrow was not acting maliciously in doing so; rather, I think his actions were a good faith -- albeit misguided -- attempt to justify difficult blocks he made, in the presence of criticism of them:, ,. -- Samir 06:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Viability of off-wiki evidence
That is not to say that off-wiki evidence should not be considered in making on-wiki decisions. There are many circumstances when e-mail or other evidence is complementary to on-wiki activity, and, the same should be used with discretion in administrative decision making. Diffs are as cited in Rama's Arrow's section below. -- Samir 18:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Aksi
I believe Aksi is selectively laying out half-truths and misrepresentations for evidence. It is intellectually dishonest of Aksi to accuse me of participating in reverting warring with Baka, D-Boy and others. If you guys look closely at Hindutva Propaganda, i just removed long quotes and suspect statements and put a disputed notice. Also i'd ask administrators to look closely at User:Dbachmann, User:Hornplease and User:rudrasharman's edits to the article and tell me wether they dont constitue tag team editing? Also why wouldnt i vote delete?Afterall i initiated the AfD after consulting Nirav and Bhadani. I donot speak for others though, it is upto them to explain their conduct.

On Goa Inquistion, i did not revert war i simply removed a disputed notice, and removed two tags. I have edited only once, hardly constitutes edit warring. For which i must add, i've been subjected to vitriolic personal attacks. Also Aksi has conviniently ignored my efforts to help improve the article and clean it from Kelkar's distortions. .

As for Indian Mathematics i reverted to India Rising, because I believed that User:Fowler&fowler was using that article as a poisoning well to expound his views on Indian political movements by quoting an economist who is neither a mathematician or a political scientist. As I said, to Aksi then, I simply had no idea that Indian Rising was Hkelkar. When Policeman Aksi 'sternly warned and pointed that India Rising was Hkelkar', i promptly reverted my own edit as a mark of my honesty and sincereity.

Aksi's extreme prejudice and distrust towards me is hard to understand. I have better things in my life to do than take oreders from a neurotic and obssesive Indian PhD student from Texas. Perhaps his good faith dries up for good ole' User:AMbroodEY. I would also ask, if i am going to be questioned for every Hkelkar tainted article i edited? Maybe call for WP:AGF is in order. My article interests are diverse and only some mildly intersected with his...  Amey Aryan DaBrood&#169; 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Deepak
What a complete joke.

Category:Konkan/Goa/India, are not repositories for Goanese people, Konkani people, etc. There is a cat for Category:People from Goa.

As for caste, Deepak was woefully unaware of this discussion on caste which I initiated with user utcursch in which we concluded that caste categorization of people was wrong and unencyclopedic. Rama's arrow in a better day agreed with us there as well.

There's nothing more to say to this troll after demolishing his arguments and "facts".

JFD
Its obvious he is sticking his nose in here only to further a witch-hunt against users who supported freedom skies and opposed him on Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies. Hindu nationalism huh? Funny, because I've never seen JFD edit anything of the sort. A bunch of random convos between banned trolls, nonbanned trolls, and Chinese nationalists means nothing. I have had no problems with JFD personally, however I really question his "neutrality" and knowledge of the issues.


 * I also find it funny how JFD reads Hindu Unity. He must be the only user on wikipedia who reads Hindu Unity. I have no idea who sebastianhelm is, and I'm quite certain the deletion was accidental and irrelevant to arbcom, unless JFD has "evidence" (a la Rama's Arrow) to note that it was malicious, ordered by hkelkar, or a product of the "defenders of Hindu Dharma"

Anyone can participate JFD, and anyone can see the efficacy of the "evidence" in light of their ulterior motives. Can I give you a barnstar to provide evidence against Rama?

Fowler
Fowler and neutral are like oil and water. A user that earns their barnstar from the likes of such pillars of the project as, , must be counted among the greats. Seems like hkelkar, rajput, freedom skies, etc never respected me enough, they never gave me a barnstar. Oh, I feel so jealous. I will concede that fowler is consistent. Consistently using wikipedia to facilitate promoting his predilections toward those from a large country in the middle of the Indian subcontinent (and their descendants) who happen to profess a certain religion.

Dbachmann
A strong proponent of admin abuse, racism, and incivility. Violation of WP:ADMIN, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:3rr, and WP:BLP.

Rama's Arrow is worried about dab, who has no qualms doling out racist and bigoted comments like these.  

Dbachmann is an indophobic bigot, and this is widely reflected within his edits.

Babri Mosque
Oh my goodness. There was the usual Hindutva army of Nobleeagle, Blnguyen, KNM, Mystytopia and Tragic Baboon. Oh wait! These guys are socks of hkelkar as well? They are Hindutva devils? Oh ok. What, they exit out of a UT-Austin Physics Lab? Bull. Rama's Arrow is totally wrong on this, considering that, , and other admins involved on this page didnt block me, I was obvoiusly within the bounds of WP:LIBEL.

RSS
Could it be? I reverted a sock of hkelkar there.

2002 Gujarat Violence
and used to visit this page a bit. Even before hkelkar was banned this page was a battleground. Noting the smoking gun, the productive contributors I was reverting included and . Hmm.....who are these great editors that Rama so admires. Could it be? They are socks of . I was criticized by  for suspecting that MinaretDk was a sock of a banned Islamist troll. Rather it seems that Hkelkar and his nemesis BhaiSaab/His excellency (they live 5 miles from one another) were duking it out themselves .  was also involved in fighting the socks of BhaiSaab as seen here.

Alienated Contributors
* 2007-04-27T11:30:28 Thatcher131 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Dangerous-Boy (contribs) (restriction to Arbitration was not specifically imposed) * 2007-04-27T11:03:41 Thatcher131 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dangerous-Boy (contribs)" (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 6 months (restore 6 month block, user was not to edit outside of his arbitration case) * 2007-04-24T16:00:52 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Dangerous-Boy (contribs) (for ArbCom case) * 2007-04-22T18:41:14 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dangerous-Boy (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months (meatpuppetry; indef'ing is a community ban, which is not the case) * 2007-04-22T18:40:51 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Dangerous-Boy (contribs) (to re-block) * 2007-04-21T19:15:06 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dangerous-Boy (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (meatpuppet of Hkelkar)
 * Dangerous-Boy had no blocks on his record. Then Rama's Arrow came along and decided to vandalize the wall of dboy's block log with his graffiti.

/ had no blocks prior to Rama's opprobrious attack on his block log. Rama blocked Anupamsr under the following grounds.

2007-04-21T19:14:53 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Anupamsr (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppetry)

However anupamsr made his last edit Two months earlier

Rama toyed with scheibenzahl a few times, taking a rather sick pleasure in fiddling with his block log.

* 2007-04-22T13:33:10 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Scheibenzahl (contribs) (accepted unblock request and explanation) * 2007-04-22T08:04:30 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Scheibenzahl (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (sockpuppetry) * 2007-04-22T08:04:03 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Scheibenzahl (contribs) (to re-block) * 2007-04-21T19:14:58 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Scheibenzahl (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of Anupamsr)

Rama and Dbachmann attacked sbhushan, dbachmann doing this, even when he was revert warring with sbhushan. However dbachmann is "a respected contributor".

* 2007-04-24T16:01:11 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Sbhushan (contribs) (for ArbCom case) * 2007-04-21T19:15:10 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sbhushan (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (meatpuppet of Hkelkar) * 2007-02-28T12:53:38 Dbachmann (Talk | contribs) unblocked Sbhushan (contribs) (per user talkpage) * 2007-02-28T11:23:32 Dbachmann (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sbhushan (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (trolling, edit-warring, 3RR (if applicable))

In a span of two days, Rama had to experiment with me 5 times and wheel warred to do so.


 * 1) 2007-04-24T16:00:33 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Bakasuprman (contribs) (for ArbCom case)
 * 2) 2007-04-23T16:55:19 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bakasuprman (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months (re-imposed block - there was no consensus or justifiable need to unblock - user can explain himself on his talkpage, that is the norm. This is no exceptional circumstance.)
 * 3) 2007-04-23T16:22:16 Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs) unblocked Bakasuprman (contribs) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=125327926&oldid=125327398)
 * 4) 2007-04-22T18:40:14 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bakasuprman (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months (shortening block - indef'ing is a community ban, which is not the case)
 * 5) 2007-04-22T18:39:47 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Bakasuprman (contribs) (to re-block)
 * 6) 2007-04-21T19:15:02 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bakasuprman (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (meatpuppet of Hkelkar; disruptive editing)

Using Hkelkar
Rama's Arrow, according to evidence provided by fowler & fowler used an hkelkar sock (Ambroodey supposedly gave him this evidence) to fight with szhaider. Hkelkar gave szhaider warnings, helped Rama skirt 3rr. This allowed Rama under the pretext of warnings going past npa4, test4, etc. to block szhaider for a week, a move I criticized. This combined with his horseplay on Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Pakistani_sentiment and his blocks of, , et. al show he is unbalanced and cannot keep his prejudices away from his editing and (mis)use of blocking tools.

On Doosra, Rama's Arrow and DaGizza edit warred with fowler and the pakistanis, according to fowler. This means that they used hkelkar to skirt 3RR while promoting their anti-Pakistani agenda.

Rama even sought to whitewash hkelkar's sockpuppetry here. Baka man  21:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Rama's Arrow is an Islamophobe and Anti-Pakistani
 * Rama's Arrow has abused admin powers on many users (Bhaisaab, Dboy, Unre4l, myself, etc)
 * Rama's Arrow has let his prejudices get in the way of his admin actions
 * Rama's Arrow has used Hkelkar to further his islamophobic/Anti-pakistani agenda and has acted as a conduit for Hkelkar's will
 * Rama's Arrow made these blocks with falsified evidence not remotely suggesting any wrongdoing
 * Rama's Arrow has been consistently incivil when questioned about his epileptic fits of insanity resulting in India-related pages descending into a state of massive entropy
 * Rama's Arrow is unfit to be an admin, and should be desysopped for these reasons

Since Rama's Arrow, Aksi_great and DaGizza (our "Crusders of Neutrality") are not on friendly terms with users they deems to be right wing Hindus, they have used this as an excuse to appease and facilitate the abusive admins, racists, ideological warriors, and trolls they answer to.

Rama has a demonstrated Islamophobic and Anti-Pakistani prejudice. This block of us would have allowed him to legitimize the next string of Pakistani/Muslim users he would go on a rampage against. Its in effect, a farce. He can then say "I'm neutral, I blocked Hindu troll Bakaman, go back to Islamabad" and continue to turn wikipedia into his own little hunting ground where Indian, Pakistani, Hindu and Muslim users will turn into game, waiting to get shot (blocked) by Rama's Arrow.

Evidence presented by Dangerous-Boy
Basically what User:Konstable said happened to me. Rama's arrow comes out of no where, with no evidence, and no explanation and bans me. His conducted was unbecoming of an admin and he should be removed from the project. His actions alone speaks for himself and how he conducts his way of life. To make the shock even worse, Dagizza comes and mocks me on my talk page after I am blocked. I fail to see how oganizing a category is bad for wikipedia. Also, who the heck is Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington? never even met the man. Another note, I have never communicated with RA through email. There is also no way to confirm if that email is my email address. Also, why is he reading mail addressed to me?!--D-Boy 08:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Aksi great
Goa Inquistion is an article I created. It was being vandalized. I cannot speak for the others but I was preventing referenced and cited sections from being deleted by the user Xandar. He comes and reverts from out no where. aribritators can check the edits of xandar on the article for for cross reference.--D-Boy 17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Deepak D'Souza
First, Deepak D'Souza insulted by accussing me of vandalism which I did not do. He removed sourced material from the article. And he was uncivil with the user:ambroodey. This led me to believe he was vandaling editor known as xander. Xander was a christen fanatic who repeatedly removed whole sourced sections of article. This led me to not take the uncivil user Deepak D'Souza seriously.--D-Boy 06:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to DaGizza
In response to the warnings that dagizza gave me, I had stopped ediiting anything controversial and refrained from editting almost all of the Hinduism-related articles which can basically be seen in my edit history. I basically followed the threats that dagizza gave me and stayed away from controversial stuff. As for my talk with bhadani, I was wondering my he didn't fight dab's attacks on an article since he was an admin as well. Also, just because HKelkar tried to contact me on my talk page, does not mean i had I communication with him through email. notice that I do not have an email communication on my user page. his talk page communication was also before his arbcom. As for content on my user page,I fail to see how that affects anything since the content on it is not offensive and breaks no wiki policy. As for JFD's revert war accusation, it was mostly sacrasm and some joking. it should also be noted that JFD was involved with revert warring with freedom skies in the indian martial arts.

the only controversial thing I could be involved in, is the goa inquistion which was an article i created. Again, I thought Deepak D'Souza was the vandal, Xandar, and did not take him seriously.--D-Boy 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that DaGizza has not proven that I broken his interpretation of NPOV. I have not vandalized any christian article ever. In fact, I organize them. Also what Dagizza has shown are selective communications on talk pages. I find this hard to believe this violates NPOV since I have not even changed articles to suit to my views.

Let the people adhere to the fact that Dagizza has mocke me, insulted me, and falsely accussed me on my talk page:

Such behavior is unbecoming of an admin and he should probably be desyoped as well.

Response to Abecedare
Basically my response to Abecedare is Priyanath's Response to JFD's meatpuppet 'evidence'. Those postings from hindunity.org are meaningless in regard to this case. They only show that someone, possibly banned user Hkelkar, attempted to recruit meatpuppets on an extremist forum. There is no evidence that anyone ever responded. There is still no evidence of meatpuppetry by any editors here. --D-Boy 04:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Rama's Arrow
First, I'd like him to thank him for possibly revealing my identity in real life and violating my privacy. I gave him no consent to release any email to strangers no matter who it is that is supposedely addressed to me. even Bhandani had threats made against him. Noble eagle left because his personal information was violated. Ambroodey also had private information about himself revealed. Rama's Arrow has basically endangered my life.

Second, RA has made accusations that I have posted crap on hinduunity. Considering that RA has repeatedly violated my privacy, I call in his integretity into question. Second, there is no ip infomation linking to such an account. Third, hinduunity looks like prime recruiting material for meat puppets. They could really help in the pornagrapy section of wikipedia:

[|Click for the message board] - '''Warning: NOT WORK SAFE! GRAPHIC and EXPLICIT CONTENT''' here's a direct example: []

So in conclusion, hindu unity looks like prime meat puppet material. Please note the sacrasm in the third point. Also, those links are not work safe! they are to make a point about the people on hindu unity and that I would not associate with it.--D-Boy 06:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, for RA's accusation that Ambroodey is lying, please look at the post RA put on Ambroodey's user page:  That basically kills any honesty and descency RA had.

and just to show RA's obession reaching insanity Ra complaining about evidence

Evidence presented by Scheibenzahl
I have no evidence to show. There are some points I will make, but they are not too important to this RfA, so I will hold on. I would like to request all the people presenting evidence to forward offending mails to me too.--Scheibenzahl 09:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I created the new account because of WikiBreak Enforcer script that I added to my old account. A checkuser was performed out of the blue. Since then the account is blocked. The relevant people could have just politely asked me instead. Since this find I am being target of off- and on- wiki harassment and wiki-stalking. I am getting mails from unknown account and some users of Wikipedia are sending me mails and trying to add me as contact to my email address that are not publicly stated anywhere on Wikipedia. In such scenario, I am leaving Wikipedia.

The account name "Anupamsr" is very dear to me. There is NO REASON FOR IT TO BE BLOCKED. There is NOT a single edit where I have used both accounts simultaneously, or a single evidence showing me that I have denied that I did not use Anupamsr. I am not familiar with any policy that explicitly requires you blank the user page because you are a sockpuppet. This whole "checkuser" and "sockpuppet" thing makes it look like a grave matter. There might be a policy to blank user page of a block user. In any case, I am and I am not blocked. Thus, there is no reason to blank that page now.

As I said, the account name "Anupamsr" is very dear to me, and represents a long time of attachment with Wikipedia. I would request all people here to let it remain as it it. May be protect it.--Scheibenzahl 13:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply for
Moved from Workshop page by the Clerk per user's request to place this in the appropriate location. Newyorkbrad 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited Hindutva Propaganda (deleted article). I DID NOT remove one single citation. Wikipedia is about encyclopedic entry about a topic, not a summary of latest journals. I have posted my point on the AfD, and as it appears, they had some content, and that is why article got deleted.

I edited the article in good faith (god I am tired of using this phrase while no one else does). The article was, as I mentioned in AfD, simply a counter propaganda article. When I started editing the article, my vote was "Merge" and not delete! (Note: This is after RA himself voted "delete". After that I left a note about major edit being done by me at article's talk page. Aksi Great is disrepresenting; the fact being that the summary was NOT the only thing I left! One must refer to the talk page of Hindutva Propaganda, without which it's just half truth.

What one would realize is that my call at talk page remained all together unanswered. Instead User:Dbachmann reverted me. I re-reverted him and left a note at his talk page. Meanwhile, came along and reverted, which could have only one reason: Dbachmann reverted it before. I re-reverted it and left a message on his talk page also, asking him to explain the reason of reversion. This is what I received instead: (reference)

"'piecemeal edits have a better chance than an omnibus whopper, because no one is here to clean up after you'" (Huh, why and where am I going?) "'And, in my experience, those quick to whip out the AGF defense doth protest too much.'" "'Sigh. As you wish. Too bad I can't plonk you.'" "'Please don't scrounge for excuses. I said thrust of the paragraph.'"

To me they are grossly uncivil and represent the same level of unprofessionalism what "nationalist editors" are accused of by Dbachmann. What one MUST know and what I have explained to Aksi great already, is that I do not believe in removing, but in adding. Only after some article is overflowing with information that we should get down on cleaning it. It is funny how \me not violating 3RR against apparent cabalism is painted as if it is my fault for having 2 reverts.

Back to accusation of reversion, it should NOT be my duty to deal with people coming along and reverting without explaining or giving a reason. 3RR is for edit wars, not reverting vandalism. And I have refused to violate 3RR even for vandalism, one can see in my contributions as Anupamsr. And if I spend long time editing an article, I deserve a criticism before it being rejected. The whole reversion drama was what lead me to believe that it indeed has WP:OWN problems.

At the end I decided to keep the article in its original state and discard my edits, and then I changed my vote from merge to delete. From the deleted article's history, one can see that I did NOT had any other edit in that article. (And stop painting it as if "omg quota of 3rr got over now what will Scheibenzahl do !111!1"). (Also note that, as far as I remember, I reverted twice! 3RR quota did NOT got over! I still had one revert as far as I remember. Though I cannot see the history to be sure.)

After that if comes and reverts Rudrasharman, more power to him. It is not my problem! I bet ANY one to find one single evidence where I asked anyone to revert for me. Calling it "Bakaman comes to the rescue" is very shortsighted and tells about lack of information on part of Aksi great. I am sorry but no AGF here, you are driving me into mud-slinging that is RfA for showing how Baka is related.

Regarding other accusations: Hkelkar was banned, as I can remember, due to fiasco on Rajput article. This was my involvement regarding it: Here I ask Dbachmann whether I should revert it or not. Here is where I tell the revert warring editor why I, an unrelated editor, reverted him back to Dbachmann's version. (Contrast this to the 2 reversions I got)

Also, because I voted merge and then changed it to delete, does that qualify me for being "usuals"? What is "usuals" in this case? Does that include following editors: User:Rama's Arrow, User:Sarvagnya, User:Killing_sparrows, User:Lostintherush, User:Bhadani, User:Cosmos416 or User:Nichalp? What makes my vote different from them? The fact that I was unwillingly listed to this RfD? What exactly are charges against me? I expect people to stop ad-hominem attacks and scarecrow tactics and just tell me what charges are against me. Just because I had one conflict with Dbachmann you perform Checkuser, then don't even tell me, then I get blocked for no reason whatsoever, then I am unblocked as if because of mercy, and now I am dragged into RfA and painted as a "meatpuppeteer"? It is exactly this kind of involvement of administrators in personal opinions and politics that has made Wikipedia totally uninteresting and unexciting to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheibenzahl (talk • contribs)

Rama’s Arrow abused admin powers
Rama’s Arrow has made following accusations against me: (1) Interacting with Hkelkar – a banned user (2) sock/meat puppet for HKelkar: editing for his purpose as proxies (3) Discussing with Hkelkar some explicit strategies for subverting Wikipedia (4) Discussing User:Dbachmann with people on mailing list

Where is the evidence of these accusations? How can someone edit as a proxy and leave no on-wiki evidence? RA is well aware that there is no such evidence. I received emails from DesiGeek (identified in ANI report as Hkelkar). Desigeek did not identify himself as Hkelkar in those emails. How am I supposed to know DesiGeek is Hkelkar? I can not stop people from sending me email with instructions; only thing in my control is acting on those instructions. '''There is no evidence of me acting on any instruction. ''' I accuse RA of playing games and abuse of admin powers. I hope that after reviewing the evidence, ArbCom will penalize RA for dragging my name through mud and turning me off Wiki project.

RA has said that he will show evidence to ArbCom privately. Based on his actions so far, how do I know he will show full evidence and not doctor it? I would request ArbCom to email me the evidence and RA’s accusations, so I can comment on it. How can I respond to evidence if I don’t even see it? At this point I wouldn’t trust RA to change light bulbs.

Regarding accusations of discussing DBachmann, you don’t need email evidence for that. Take a look at my RfC, Arbcom request and my comments on article talk page. They clearly show that I think DBachmann is a serious hindrance to Wikipedia project. I strongly believe that to improve quality of Wikipedia, DBachmann’s original research, POV pushing and disruptive behaviours have to be addressed. Where I live free speech is not forbidden. That was reason of my ArbCom request; I came to Arbcom as last resort. I also strongly believe that quality of articles is more important than quantity of articles.

Evidence against DBachmann
DBachmann agrees that this issue should be resolved once and for all so that we can get back to "writing an encyclopedia". This issue can not be resolved till DBachmann’s abuse of admin power, his disruptive and uncivil behaviours, and his working with tag team of editors to publish his POV are addressed. I urge Arbcom to consider quality of contribution. Wikipedia has good quantity of content, but quality of content is more important for project. Thanks to Hornplease for identifying Dab’s cabal.

These are 2 articles before my contribution ([] and []), please take a look at quality of articles after I got involved ([] and []). I am not claiming glory for this, since this was collaborative effort of lots of editors. In both cases I had to fight with DBachmann and his cabal who are contributing bad quality content. Lots of evidence on talk page of both articles.

DBachmann claims to be knowledgeable, but when he is asked to provide verifiable content, he just ignores the request and keep publishing original research that can not be verified to any sources. [] and [] I also challenged Rudra to provide verifiable content [] and again []. So far no good content has been added by either of these editors to the Indo-Aryan migration. If both these editors are as knowledgeable as they claim, why are they having hard time finding good content and why they are publishing original research?

I came to Wikipedia to provide good verifiable content on Aryan migration article; from very first comment Dab assumed bad faith and made very negative comments []. I tried to resolve the conflict using every means suggested in dispute resolution policies. There is large (on-wiki) history of request on talk pages to Dab to stay civil and have discussion instead of edit warring. This battleground is Dab’s creation. I urge ArbCom to find a solution to this problem.

Disruptive behaviour - DBachmann removes sourced edits made in a neutral narrative
After rejection of my ArbCom request against DBachmann on March 26th [], he did 23 edits in about 3 hours on March 28th on the Out of India article. Most of these edits removed sourced material presented in neutral narrative. 2 edits removed complete sections [] and []. When I added the information back, he again removed it [], even though my edit summary asked him to leave {fact} tag and discuss on talk page. My edit summary clearly explains sources of data []. After few days of work all material was restored. In 3 hours Dab removed months of hard work, it took another week to add it back. This behaviour is very disruptive. I can provide more evidence of similar behaviour if required.

DBachmann is using Wikipedia as a platform to publish his POV
Here are some examples of Dab misrepresenting the citied material to push his POV [] and []

Dab created the article Indigenous Aryans based on combining 2 words and tried to use Bryant 2001 as citation. []. When I added the exact words from Bryant 2001 (that Dab supposedly used) with page reference [], he removes the sourced material because it is against his POV []. He also provided this citation as reference []; this reference doesn’t support Dab’s edits. When I fixed the text based on his  citation [], he reverts it since it does not fit his POV anymore. He provided the citation and miss-represented the cited material.

DBachmann has created number of articles solely to publish his POV (one recent example is Hindutva Propaganda, please see link for deletion discussion. []). This POV pushing is the root cause of this escalated conflict. This disruptive behaviour has to be stopped.

DBachmann (with tag team) is publishing original research on Wikipedia and thus damaging quality of Wikipedia project
The article Indigenous Aryans was all original research; I tagged specific statement []. Both Dab and Rudra removed the tags without providing any citations; few citations that were provided did not validate the statements made in the article. They didn’t provide correct citation, but also removed {OR} and {fact} tags from the article working as a tag team. Please see current version identified above, all tagged items have been removed.

I requested citation for a comment in Out of India article and DBachmann changed refernce about 4 times for this statement, none of which checked out (see old discussion on talk page []). I removed this original research after waiting for about 4 months for citation []. Rudrasharman reverted my edit with this strange edit summary []. I left this note on talk page [], as a response Rudrasharman provides this unpublished analysis of published document while confirming that the cited publication doesn’t explicitly make this claim [], but then he is rv-warring to keep the statement in the article. []. DBachmann supports Rudrasharman on talk page [].

DBachmann violates WP:BLP
He is insulting published authors by calling them names []; each of those authors has accomplished more in life than Dab. Later on he agrees that Kazanas publication in JIES is acceptable [] and []. So his first assessment of Kazanas was baseless and name calling against WP:BLP. If he disagrees with any particular authors’ position, he can either remove the content if it is not acceptable to Wikipedia standards or provide criticism based on acceptable sources. Wikipedia should not be used to publish his personal views.

Disruptive behaviour - DBachmann is Uncivil
Almost every response on talk page by Dab is extremely uncivil. This is not “cite the old "shithole" diff” (as Aksi words it). It would be difficult to find a civil comment from Dab. Other admins are well aware of his uncivil behaviour [].

Disruptive behaviour - DBachmann labelled me Hindutva Trolls without any justification
During consensus building stage of rewrite of article Out of India, I proposed removing all religious related discussion and base it only on scholarly content from acceptable sources, while making a clear statement that this is minority view []. I also rewrote the document as per consensus on talk page [], which DBachmann agreed to [].

I specifically asked Bakaman to take religious discussion somewhere else [] in response to his “Hindutva” comment []. Now I am being accused of POV pushing with Bakaman

I have no history of editing any “hindutva” articles. I edit Indo-Aryan related article as historical event, not due to any religious significance. All content provided by me is referenced to acceptable sources. DBachmann labelled me without any basis and his stereotyping people is escalating conflict and is not acceptable behaviour.

Explicit violation of the blocking policy by Dbachmann
Dbachmann misused his admin privileges by blocking me in a content dispute. "Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.". Other admin Dmcdevit and BigDT who reviewed the history of block/dispute considered it poorly judged block. My unblock request was to an independent admin, as I requested a review of Dbachmann’s behavior, and. Dbachmann unblocked me to avoid a review of his actions. I was not aware of wikipedia process at that time, otherwise I would have requested an ArbCom. Even though I did not make any commitment to Dbachmann, I still did not edit any article during that 48 hours. I would request ArbCom to remove this from my block log as this was misuse of admin power.

Dbachmann does not respect consensus
Majority of editors voted for name change of Indo-Aryan migration article to include “theory”; in peer reviewed literature the name also includes “theory”. Dbachmann threatened edit warring if name was changed. The name has not been changed.

Reply to Evidence presented by Aksi great

 * 1) Where is evidence against me?
 * 2) You also did not mention that Rama's Arrow also voted delete in the Afd. Since Rama's Arrow was in the email list, shouldn't he himself be part of WP:MEAT accusation?Sbhushan 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding evidence provided by
I hope everyone takes a good look at the evidence provided by Fowler&fowler in the section Doosra. This evidence shows that (later referred as RA) and  (later referred as DG) were acting as meatpuppet for  (Hkelkar sock, later referred as RS223). This is on-wiki evidence. Another on-wiki evidence is RA reverting Nadirali’s edit on RS223 user page, where Nadirali identified RS223 as sockpuppet of Hkelkar.

In ANI report Current permalink, had mentioned on April 24 (can't figure out how to provide diff) that both RA and DG were aware of Hkelkar’s socks and were knowingly using Hkelkar to support the Indian/Pakistan RfAr and subverting Wikipedia.

I thought RA was taking his admin role too seriously, but it seems he is trying to deflect attention from his action as meatpuppet for Hkelkar. There is lot more here than meets the eye. There is more on-wiki evidence presented so far to show that RA and DG were colluding with Hkelkar and acting as meatpuppet for him and subverting Wikipedia. RA has not provided any reason for delay in presenting evidence; DG is sufficiently active on Wikipedia, so he should be able to provide evidence. They made serious accusations and now are refusing to provide any evidence. Arbcom had granted exception to few, but had made statement that others should provide evidence (please see Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC) comments).Sbhushan 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Rama’s Arrow’s “evidence”
Rama’s Arrow’s (RA) so called “evidence” is outright fiction, fantasy, mixing and matching of different sources, and misrepresentation of facts. Few places I can identify outright forgery and doctoring without even looking at this “evidence”. He has created a conspiracy in his mind and is trying to justify his actions. I will split my response in 2 sections. First section will address all issues except discussion of DBachmann (Dab) and second section will discuss so called “plans and strategize” against Dab.

re: so called “plans and strategize” against Dab
From my first note in this RfArb I have said that I vented out my frustration about Dab in that mailing list. I did not “strategize” about anything. A chain started about an RfArb related to Dab and I provided comments about my experience and how I should have done it. When my ArbCom request was rejected I was quite surprised and I looked at other RfArb (e.g. Freedom Skies was active that time). I tried to see why they got accepted and my request got rejected.

Dab created this dispute; I have tried to resolve this for six months. I tried getting other editors involved, third party mediation, 2 mediation cases, RfC and finally as last resort I came to ArbCom. I even asked Dab for suggestion to how to resolve this dispute. I have provided evidence of admin power abuse, disruptive activities, and tag-team editing by Dab. I hope ArbCom will address this issue.

Response to evidence presented by DBachmann
This warm welcome, Dbachmann extended to me as a new user, is an example of his angelic patience. I can not imagine what it will be like when he will loose his patience. When mediation cabal made this change based on concensus [], DBachmann reverted it []. Please also note that while reverting he adds more original research in reference itself. This gives an impression of a referenced article, but is more original research. That mediation did not succeed because he refused to participate and when a decision was implemented he claimed ignorance.

Interestingly, he selectively can not understand my writings. Mostly he does that when he has no argument left. Sometimes when I have copy/pasted wikipedia policy, he can not comprehend that either. Maybe that explains why he violates wikipedia policy so much. I asked for help in formatting as presentation is not my strength. Here is another example of angelic patience in response to my comment

DBachmann again makes claim of being an academic editor. His lack of subject matter expertise is easiest thing to prove; the questions are:


 * 1) Why over six month period he is not able to provide a single verifiable content from academic sources?
 * 2) Why does every single citation he provides, says something different then what he claims?
 * 3) Why is he publishing original research?
 * 4) Why is the article Indo-Aryan Migration lacking in good content from academic sources? He and Rudra have been working on that article for so long and they have not added any verifiable content from academic sources.  Both use all kind of weasel words to push their POV.
 * 5) Why does he feel a need to create controversial articles based on original research? When he could not publish his POV in Out of India article, he created Indigenous Aryan article to publish his views. Again, diffs are available to show all this and consensus was against him.  He creates these articles with bad intent and it takes months to clean them up.
 * 6) He does not even qualify as a “fringe” author, but he publishes his personal theories on Wikipedia.

Question to ArbCom is how can original research and bad quality content be good for the project? As you would have noticed, I have stopped contributing to the project. I am waiting to see what is valued on wikipedia.

Meatpuppet Accusations
This case began when Rama's Arrow blocked Bakasuprman (indef block for "meatpuppet of Hkelkar; disruptive editing"), Dangerous-Boy (indef block for "meatpuppet of Hkelkar"), and SBhushan (indef block for "meatpuppet of Hkelkar"). Offical WP policy at WP:MEAT includes the following definition of meatpuppetry (emphasis is mine): "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion."

None of these accounts are brand new accounts &mdash; they were created between January 2005 and October 2006. Two of them (Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy) show a very wide range of edits relating to India and Hinduism, and a broader range that includes Christianity, Hawaiian religion, and more. SBhushan focuses on articles relating to Indo-Aryan Migration theory, but that in itself is not a crime. Many excellent editors have a narrow focus of editing, based on their knowledge and interest.

Meatpuppetry also requires that these accounts were acting on behalf of HKelkar. Anyone who has observed these three editors would laugh at such an idea. Proof would have to include not only the request to edit an article in a specific way, but evidence that the editors did so in a significant number of edits.

Occasional edits in response to canvassing don't constitute meatpuppetry. Some months ago I received an email from one of the very admins involved in this case 'suggesting' a vote for a particular person. After reading up on the person and the position they were running for, I voted for them. That doesn't make me a meatpuppet.

Absent any convincing evidence of meatpuppetry, and since that is the main charge against all three, they should all be allowed to freely edit during this hearing &mdash; especially since it's going to be delayed at the request of a few involved parties. &#2384; Priyanath talk 20:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to JFD's meatpuppet 'evidence'
Those postings from hindunity.org are meaningless in regard to this case. They only show that someone, possibly banned user Hkelkar, attempted to recruit meatpuppets on an extremist forum. There is no evidence that anyone ever responded. Note: I never even heard of hindunity.org until this whole thing blew up on ANI. If someone here presented postings from a Stormfront forum recruiting meatpuppets for Aryan related articles, that would be equally irrelevant.

There is still no evidence of meatpuppetry by any editors here.

Edit-warring, abuse of admin authority, disruption, page-owning, anti-Hindu remarks
It always takes two parties to edit-war. And incivility is often a two-sided affair. The following evidence shows the other side, and shows blockable offenses by some of the very parties who are making statements against the Hindu editors here.

Nicholas Kazanas: Violations of WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and abuse of admin authority
After Dbachmann’s AfD attempt (Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Kazanas) failed, he immediately redirected the Nicholas Kazanas article to Out of India [], over-riding the intent of the AfD closure, in which the closing admin ruled ‘keep’ (see his edit comment on the closure: []). After another editor undid the redirect, Dbachmann, Hornplease, and Rudrasharman tag-teamed to continue their bad-faith redirect six more times. [] [] [] [] [] []

At that point, the article was protected by the AfD-closing admin, King of Hearts. [] Dbachmann then unprotected the article so he could edit it again, abusing his admin powers, and insulting and threatening another editor in his edit summary. [] Additionally, Hornplease accused King of Hearts of ‘laziness’ for keeping the article[], and made uncivil comments [] in the discussion about the AfD, in response to my good-faith efforts to discuss.

More Dbachmann incivility, threats, page-owning
Dbachmann frequently accuses Hindu editors who disagree with him of being trolls and single-purpose accounts. In a civil (on my part) discussion about an AfD, he accused me of being a ‘single-topic POV editor’ []. When I tried to find what the official definition was of ‘single-topic editor’, I discovered it’s the same as a ‘meatpuppet’ and that "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community."(from WP:MEAT) When a heavy-handed admin accuses you of being a meatpuppet, that can easily be taken as a threat, if not WP:CIVIL.

Accusing the Hindu editors who disagreed with him on an AfD of being trolls []

Threatening an editor in an edit summary with blocking, merely for disagreeing with his own POV [].

More insults, threats of blocking an editor who is disagreeing with his POV edits, incivility, page-owning, and accusations of trolling against Hindu editors: [] []  []  []

More page-owning against consensus

When I added a recent peer-reviewed study to Indo-Aryan migration that didn’t quite jibe with Dbachmann’s POV, one of his usual tag-team crew removed it with an insulting edit summary []. Dbachmann added my cite back, though rephrasing/re-interpreting the meaning and burying it in the article, along with the usual insulting edit summary []. Here are Dbachmann and Rudrasharman scheming further how to bury or delete the scientific study that doesn’t sit well with their POV: [] [] []

’Cleansing’ of articles by Hornplease
After Rama’s Arrow blocked the editors involved with this RfA, Hornplease began ‘cleansing’ articles with citations relating to Koenraad Elst, a notable author on Hindu issues. Hornplease makes blanket accusations of unnamed editors ‘wikibombing’ (I don’t even know what that is). He and Dbachmann frequently accuse any author they don’t like of being ‘fringe’ or ‘pseudo-science’. This cleansing spree is just one example of a disturbing pattern by these editors: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []  [] []

Further Intimidation by Dbachmann
Less than 3 hours after this abusive admin left a typically heavy-handed comment [] on Rayfield’s user page, Rayfield permanently retired from Wikipedia.[].

Dbachmann’s threats are not idle ones. Note that he will block editors who disagree with him in articles that he edits/WP:OWNs: Sbhushan Block Log. Also note that ‘accusations’ of trolling, meatpuppetry, and single-purpose account by a Wikipedia administrator with the power to block, can be considered a threat. A stranger accusing you of being a bank-robber is far different than a policeman accusing you of being a bankrobber. The weight of admin authority, and the right to penalize, constitute a threat when such accusations are being made.

Anti-Hindu remarks by Dbachmann
This is by far the most disturbing aspect of this case. His already discussed comment, "there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access" [] has been casually dismissed by editors here as just a ‘boys will be boys’ kind of thing. If he had apologized, and if he had refrained from other such comments, then it could be seen as just a stupid one-off mistake. But he continues to threaten Hindu editors with blocking, dismisses their edits as kookery and fringecraft, and makes yet more anti-Hindu statements like this one: "yes: the Hindus are hopeless, let them build their dreamworld." []

And the condescending and insulting “If I was Indian, I would regard it a patriotic effort to keep WIN-style nonsense off Wikipedia.” (WIN is a Hindu editor) []

Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - Dbachmann seems to feel that ‘hopeless’ ‘sh*thole’ Hindus are the exception, through his own statements, and more importantly through his intimidation and threats to Hindu editors, his page-owning, and his POV pushing. Since he is an extremely prolific editor and admin who WP:OWNs many Hindu articles, this is utterly appalling. I’m surprised the media hasn’t discovered this seamy underside to Wikipedia (hello New York Times, hint, hint?).

Conclusion
I hope that committee members consider the evidence against all editors equally: admins and non-admins, new editors and those with over 50,000 edits. Admins&mdash;and those with over 50,000 edits&mdash;if anything should be held to a higher standard since they know the policies. I also would ask members to read Sbhushan’s evidence closely. He isn’t as savvy with the RfA process as the admins prosecuting this case, and other RfA-savvy editors (one of the shortcomings of this process), but I believe he has been most unfairly blocked and abused by Dbachmann and his group.

Regarding all of the editors being threatened with blocking&mdash; Bakasuprman, Sbhushan, Scheibenzahl,  AMbroodEY, and Dangerous-Boy&mdash; there is no evidence of meatpuppetry, and any evidence of incivility and disruption is insignificant in comparison to the anti-Hindu contingent.

For myself, I have stopped editing most articles relating to Hinduism because of ownership by Dbachmann and his gang. That is a lot of articles relating to Hinduism, when you look at their history. When an admin can block, protect, unprotect, threaten, abuse, and gang up on other editors, then it’s a waste of time to even try editing those articles. I give permission to the Arbitration Committee to look at my watchlist and its history, if that’s possible, to see that I gave up on those articles some weeks ago.

I hope someday that editors from India, and Hindu editors, will be made to feel welcome at Wikipedia.

Response to Rama's Arrow accusations
That's what they are, since there is scant evidence. I personally never 'strategized' with other editors about 'orchestrating' a new RfAr. I won't say any more, since RA is essentially encouraging people to start cutting each other's throats here. Everything that I've ever written on Wikipedia, including my words in this RfA, are entirely my own, without any guidance, feedback, orchestrating, or planning with other editors. I also haven't seen any on-wiki, or off-wiki evidence of other editors planning an attack on Wikipedia or on specific articles. I have seen indefensible incivility, page-owning, prejudice, and admin abuse as I've outlined above. I trust the Arbitration Committee members to look at the real evidence and judge for themselves.

Revert-warring in tandem
There are many cases where these users edit-war in tandem with each other and manage to evade 3RR. All of them are establised users editing since a long time. So it makes it impossible for admins to mark them as meatpuppets and count all of them as one. Here are some articles where I have observed them editwarring:


 * Goa Inquisition
 * This was the article from which I discovered Hkelkar's sock User:Rumpelstiltskin223. See Rumpel's first block for violating 3rr here.
 * In December 2006, Tango had to protect this article after an extensive revert war. See . Between the dates 11 December 2006 to 16 December (when it was locked by Tango), the article was reverted 8 times by Rumpelstilskin223 (Hkelkar, will be called Rumpel from now), 1 time by Dangerous-Boy (D-boy from now), 2 times by Bakamasuprman (Baka from now), and 2 times by Bharatveer. That makes it 13 reverts.
 * But it did not stop there. Even in the last month we see examples of tag-team revert warring. See . We first have D-boy, then Baka , then AMbroodEY (Amey) and then again D-Boy  revert warring with the same user.


 * Indian mathematics
 * Yet another article which came to my attention as it was being India Rising (another Hkelkar sock) with edits like and edit summaries like "Keep out nonsense claims". On 10 February, Daniel.Bryant  blocked that account. But soon after Fowler&fowler reverted the banned users edits, Amey reverts it back to Hkelkar's version . Again, I didn't block Amey because he was a long time editor, though I did give him a very strong warning after which he reverted his edit . But what followed the next few days was predictable. Fowler was reverted by Hkelkar, then by Freedom skies (now on revert parole for 1 year) . Both Freedom skies and Fowler got blocked for 3RR that time. The edit-war stopped only after an RfC against Freedom skies.
 * There is also evidence of more edit-warring by Bakaman and Bharatveer even this March this time edit warring against their main opponent Dbachmann. Bharatveer reverting 2 times, and then suddenly Bakaman joining the game.


 * Hindutva propaganda
 * The now deleted Hindutva propaganda article was also one of the main disputes between Dab and the "Hindu" editors. While I understand differences of opinion, I cannot understand how so many editors can revert together. Please see (this can only be seen by admins).
 * On 27th March, Bakaman reverts with the edit summary "wordpress is a blog site, therefore does not meet WP:RS". Again on 28th March "blogs do not meet WP:RS)". Then D-Boy on 29th "blogs do not meet WP:RS". Then Baka on the same day "the obtuse should perhaps read WP:NPA". Still later we have edit-summaries like "fascism only in the minds of Osama maybe". v
 * Again on 31st March, Scheibenzahl "major edit to remove POV, weasel words + wikification", then reverting 2 more times (note quota of 3RR is over). So Bakaman comes to the rescue - 21:57, 31 March 2007 . . Bakasuprman (rv to scheibenzahl).
 * The article was later deleted through an AfD with the usuals Bakaman, Scheibenzahl, Amey, Freedom skies, D-Boy all voting to delete. All I can say about the AfD is that atleast the votes were not all pileone and some of them did have good reasons to delete the article.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Bad faith Edits by Bakasuprman
In two articles that I have watched bakaman deliberately overwrote existing categories. To an unconcerned observer it may seem that he was correcting the categories but it shows that he has something against the particular names. If he wanted to he could have just added the categories in a new line. but nstead he chose to overwrite them

In both these cases he replaced them with the category:.
 * 1) Acacio Gabriel Viegas: Removed diff:
 * 2) Anant Pai: Removed . diff:

However in other articles he has just added the tag on a new like suggesting that he has something against Goa and Konkani

Another article where he has whimsically removed a category was Dadala Raphael Ramanayya. In this article he removed the. diff --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DBoy's persistent harping of user's religion
DBoy often comments on a user's religious in order to arm-twist them to agree with them. Even if any attempt is ingnored or replied with a warnining he persists with a more severe comment and tries in vain to make the user feel guilty of breaking his religion's codes. He has commented on my religion four times in order to get me to agree with him on the Goa Inquisition article: and once on Bhadani in order to get him to support him regarding this very arbcom case :. Hillariously enough, he has even suggested that Jimbo wales might support them because he is a Jew:.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Evidence presented by Fowler&fowler
At this point I don't really know if I have any evidence, or for that matter against whom. Perhaps I should work this out in a sandbox, but I'm doing it here in the hope that others more experienced may see something I don't.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that I don't endorse any inference others (on this page) may draw from my evidence.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Iqbal (a famous Urdu language poet) is the great poet-hero of Pakistan. Although he died in 1938&mdash;before British India was divided into modern India and Pakistan&mdash;he is often credited with "imagining" Pakistan. And although Iqbal is familiar to Indians as the author of India's unofficial national anthem, his poetry is better known, and better understood, in Pakistan (where the national language is Urdu). This page became an FA in early July 2006 after this FAC. I became aware of the page in mid-January 2007 after I noticed that a Pakistani editor, &mdash;who I had myself sparred with, been frustrated by, and had only just called a truce with (see here)&mdash;had been blocked for a week for edit-warring there (see here). My assessment of the page at that time was that (despite the FA status) it was not compellingly written. I also noticed that,  (banned ), and  had all made recent appearances there. In what follows below, Rama's Arrow did attempt to engage Szhaider on his talk page well before the block; whether the other two editors&mdash;Rumpelstiltskin223 and Bakasuprman&mdash;colluded in any way with each other or with Rama's Arrow, is hard to know. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the sequence of diffs:


 * 5 January 2007 (03:36), makes Edit1, with edit summary, ("removed wrong Urdu and reverted to the version where Iqbal's nationality debate had been put in a neutral debate without claiming him for either country- discuss before reverting.")
 * 5 January 2007 (03:44) reverts previous edit with Edit2 and edit summary ("pakistan did not exist in 1938 at the time of his death.")
 * 5 January 2007 (03:45) reverts the previous edit with Edit3 and edit summary ("I'm not claiming him for Pakistan. Do not remove neutral material. Do not add wrong Urdu.").
 * 5 January 2007 (03:46) reverts previous edit with Edit4 and no edit summary.
 * 5 January 2007 (03:49) reverts previous edit with Edit5 and edit summary ("do not remove neutral material")
 * 5 January 2007 (03:52) reverts previous edit with Edit6 and no edit summary.
 * 5 January 2007 (03:53) reverts previous edit with Edit7 and edit summary ("no good reason to remove debate resolving material")
 * 5 January 2007 (04:00) reverts previous edit with Edit8 and no edit summary.
 * 5 January 2007 (04:02) receives 3RR block
 * 5 January 2007 (04:04) leaves this message on Szhider's talk page.
 * 6 January 2007 (10:52) reverts previous edit with Edit9 and edit summary ("why on earth would somebody, who has no knowledge of Urdu whatsoever, would mess with Urdu scripts specially in articles like this. آقبال would be "aaqbal" in English")
 * 6 January 2007 (22:44) (partially) reverts previous edit with Edit10 and edit summary ("rvv POV")
 * 6 January 2007 (23:10) reverts previous edit with Edit11 and edit summary ("Indian subcontinent is mentioned in first paragraph. No POV. It is a fact that despite he was the architect of idea of Pakistan Hindu Indian have always tried to claim him and his Islamic works.")
 * 6 January 2007 (23:49) (partially) reverts previous edit with Edit12 and edit summary ("we are well aware of his religion without needing to resort to "Hindu imperialism")
 * 6 January 2007 (23:56) (partially) reverts Szhaider's previous edit with Edit13 and edit summary ("rmv POV")
 * 6 January 2007 (23:59) reverts previous two edits with Edit14 and edit summary ("do not remove facts")
 * 7 January 2007 (00:00) reverts previous edit with Edit15 and no edit summary.
 * 7 January 2007 (00:02) leaves this reply on Szhaider's talk page, two more replies at 17:13 and 17:56.
 * 7 January 2007 (22:54) leaves this warning on Szhaider's talk page.
 * 7 January 2007 (23:09) (partially) reverts previous edit with Edit16 with edit summary ("added some facts and fixed a link")
 * 7 January 2007 (23:48) reverts previous edit with Edit17 and no edit summary.
 * 7 January 2007 (23:55) reverts previous edit with Edit18 and no edit summary.
 * 8 January 2007 (00:43) blocks Szhaider for 1-week here


 * 16 January (05:08) Starting at this time, makes a series of (mostly copy-) edits which have the effect of changing the lead from this previous version to this version.  The last edit is made at 07:30 (on 17 January).
 * 17 January (03:15) reverts all the edits with edit1 and edit summary ("rvv- "neutral" term is not the goal. A "factual" term is. We do not invent or reinterpret terms to assuage the emotions and POV of Indians or Pakistanis, or anybody else").
 * 17 January (03:32), reverts the previous edit in Edit2 and edit summary ("What you consider factual, I consider normative. Don't see why your version is more factual. Please discuss on the talk page first. rv to f&f version").
 * 17 January 04:00 leaves this message on 's  talk page.
 * 17 January 04:01 reverts the previous edit of Fowler&fowler in Edit3 with no edit summary.
 * 17 January (04:29) reverts previous edit in Edit4 and edit summary ("rv to previous version of f&f")
 * 17 January (06:50) reverts the previous edit in Edit5 and no edit summary.
 * 17 January (07:34) reverts previous edit in Edit6 and edit summary ("revert to last vesrion by F&F; see Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India disambiguation discussion")
 * 18 January (15:34) reverts previous edit in Edit7 and edit summary ("rv sockpuppet of kuntan")

This page has been around since 28 March 2004. (See first edit). It is about a cricket term for a type of delivery (same as "pitch" in baseball) that was invented by a Pakistani bowler in the 1990s. The word "doosra" is shared by both Urdu language (spoken in Pakistan) and Hindi language (spoken in India). The languages, however, have different scripts: Urdu uses a modified Perso-Arabic script, while Hindi uses a Sanskrit-based Devanagari script. As you can imagine, the raw material for a Pakistan-India Wiki-war was all there. The Pakistani editors, felt that since the delivery and the term were invented by Pakistanis (whose language is Urdu), only the Urdu script should accompany the Roman. Indians, however, felt that since the term was shared by Hindi, the Hindi script should be there as well.

The page had no history of any contribution by any of the users:, (Hkelkar sock), , , or  until mid-January, 2007. I think one could make the case that Rama's Arrow was doing his administrator's job by going after the anon IP (in reality, the blocked user Szhaider, who had edit-warred with RA on other pages like Jinnah and Iqbal). Why others like (Hkelkar sock),, , or  turn up here is a little harder to explain, but they might have been edit-warring elsewhere with the IP as well and simply followed him to this page. In the end, after an RfC posted by and much back and forth, it was decided to keep only the Urdu script, but also to mention that the word belongs to both languages, and this is the current state of the page.


 * On 1 November 2006, (who was later banned by Arbcom for one year, after an RfArb filed by Rama's Arrow) made an unsigned post on the Talk:doosra page (see here), "The word doosra comes from Urdu, and shouldnt be related to hindi. The move was invented by a Pakistani, and his language was Urdu. Please dont try to cram India in to everything Pakistan related. I dont see this happening the other way around."
 * 13 January 2007. The post was still unresponded to.   then made Edit1 in which he removed the Devanagari script (with edit summary "see talk page") and simultaneously went back and signed his previous post on the talk page (see here).  At 02:44 on 14 January 2007, Unrea4L was blocked for 1-week by Rama's Arrow here.
 * 14 January 2007, 22:23, reverted the previous edit with Edit2 and edit summary ("rvv"), without making any post on the talk page.
 * 16 January 2007, 02:07 (later turned out to be user  who was blocked at that time and had earlier been edit-warring with Rama's Arrow on other pages, but confirmation that IP=Szhaider came only at 03:21) reverted the previous edit with Edit3 and the edit summary "A Pakistani invented this ball then what is the rationale of Hindi."
 * 16 January 2007, 03:04,  reverted the previous edit with Edit4 and edit summary: ("Reverted edits by 70.49.171.110 (talk) to last version by Nobleeagle"), but with no post on the talk page (No confirmation at this point that IP=Szhaider)
 * 16 January 2007, 03:16 (slightly different IP, but in the dynamic range) reverted the previous edit with Edit5 with edit summary: ("A Pakistani invented this ball then what is the rationale of Hindi. Please explain your reason to keep Hindi.")
 * 16 January 2007, 03:27 (with confirmation of IP=Szhaider) reverted the previous edit with Edit6 and edit summary: ("Reverted edits by 70.49.171.110 (talk) to last version by Rama's Arrow"), but with no post on the talk page.
 * 16 January 2007, 03:32 (same dynamic range as Szhaider)  reverted the previous edit with Edit7 and edit summary ("this admins loves edit-wars without discussion")
 * 16 January 2007, 08:55 (Hkelkar sock) reverted the previous edit with Edit8  and edit summary ("Revert to revision 101024981 dated 2007-01-16 03:29:28 by Rama's Arrow using popups") and with no post on talk page.
 * 16 January 2007, 10:35. A new IP  adds some text in Edit9: "The word has the same meaning in Hindi too which helped it to gain widespread popularity."
 * 16 January 2007, 11:28, makes Edit10 with edit summary ("Hindustani is the common word for both Urdu and Hindi, and since "do" (two) is common to both Urdu and Hindi, it is best to use Hindustani.")
 * 16 January 2007, 16:48 (same dyn. range as Szhaider), reverts the previous edit with Edit11 (no edit summary), but at 18:43, leaves an unsigned post Hindi Script on the talk page.
 * 16 January 2007, 22:41, reverts the previous edit in Edit12 with edit summary ("rv Gizza's reasoning is alright").

WP:ANI-Anti-Hindu Remarks
Again I don't know if there is any hard evidence here (and against whom), but I'll let ArbCom read it. Please read. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Case and evidence presented by Rama's Arrow
I am presenting the comprehensive case, evidence and analysis here and will transmit the full text of e-mail evidence to ArbCom and Jimbo Wales, but to provide a circumspect case, I must quote the relevant parts of e-mails. My first action on this case was to e-mail a request for guidance to arbitrators Fred Bauder and Kirill Lokshin. Upon Kirill Lokshin's advice, I e-mailed the entire committee via its mailing list and also e-mailed him personally with the same text. However, I did not receive any reply or guidance from any arbitrator. I am very disappointed and I do not understand why no arbitrator replied - I would have honored any instruction or advice, including that of doing nothing. I just wanted the committee to know about all this and guide me, but I was left hanging. The moderator did not send me any notice of rejection, so I assume the e-mail was passed on. After making so many efforts to obtain guidance, I can't demean myself by respecting an opinion that I didn't do the right thing. My loyalty is 100% to Wikipedia.

Bakasuprman, Sbhushan, Dangerous-Boy are disruptive editors colluding with Hkelkar
In what began before Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar, these individuals have closely collaborated with Hkelkar and after his blocking, followed his footsteps and converted Wikipedia articles such as Out of India Theory, Indo-Aryan migration, National Development Front, Aryan Invasion Theory, Babri Mosque, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Vishva Hindu Parishad, Godhra Train Burning, 2002 Gujarat violence, Theory of Indigenous Aryans in India, Indian caste system, Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, Sita Ram Goel, Narendra Modi, Hindutva and other Hindutva-related articles into literal battlegrounds, feuding with rival Islamist editors as well as respectable editors. A brief peruse through these article histories will reveal scores of occasions where WP:DE, WP:EW, WP:3RR, WP:MEAT, WP:NPOV WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:RS have been violated by these individuals. Their collusive edit-warring have reduced these articles to quagmires of disputes and edit wars, with no earnest editor willing to spend time lifting these articles from the perpetual mess they are in.

Dangerous-Boy shares Bakasuprman and Hkelkar's attitudes and attempts to convert Wikipedia into a battle ground on racial and religious lines: has inquired if Jimbo Wales, being Jewish (or not) would thereby naturally side with Hindus against Islamists. Guided by their banned mentor, Bakasuprman and Dangerous-Boy relentlessly create battlegrounds based on race, religion, nationality, politics and heap personal abuse against their "opponents. Bakasuprman makes a vicious personal attack against Dbachmann, D-Boy appeals to Bhadani's "Gandhian" nature here. On Nobleeagle's talkpage section "Emerging superpowers", he assails Indian editors "lacking balls," talks in terms of us being "brown" and thus Indians should stick together, and that Some indian editors just don't have balls to vote keep. These are clear violations of WP:NOT, WP:TE/WP:EW, WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA and WP:POINT.


 * Bakasuprman specially welcomes the sockpuppets of Hkelkar and Maleabroad (apparently he can't say that loudly enough) and ideological trolls -, , , . You won't find that same "enthusiasm" in most of his other welcomes such as.


 * Bakasuprman and Hkelkar's tag-teaming on RSS, 2002 Gujarat violence, BJP and Godhra Train Burning:, , , , , , , Bakasuprman later "thanks" Hkelkar's sockpuppet for his "help".


 * D-Boy and Hkelkar's tag-team meatpuppetry on RSS:, (please note that Hkelkar's edit was reverted by admin Khoikhoi; D-Boy was especially unjustified in reverting Khoikhoi's reversion of a banned user) followed up by Bakasuprman's edit-warring and WP:3RR violation on the same article:,, , ,


 * On National Development Front, Bakasuprman reverts one user who he believes is a banned editor, to restore version of another banned editor, Hkelkar's sock Lionheart5:


 * Coordinated meatpuppetry and tag-team edit-warring on Babri Mosque by Bakasuprman, Hkelkar (thru user: 128.83.131.122), and D-Boy:, ,


 * Bakasuprman has a long history of edit-warring:,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , ,


 * As his e-mails suggest, Sbhushan has single-mindedly sought to harass and target Dbachmann, launching a frivolous ArbCom case against him and violating WP:EW, WP:DE, WP:ATT/WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA:,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


 * Dangerous-Boy has edited on an ideological basis, violated WP:POINT, WP:NPOV and often harassed users on lines of religion, nationality. He has openly defended Hkelkar's views, his edit-warring and his socks. It is pure luck that has saved him from being blocked before:, ,


 * On the ANI discussion of Rumpelstiltskin223, D-Boy and Bakasuprman were the only ones arguing against his indef-blocking. Given that they are in personal contact with Hkelkar, it was an obvious attempt to try and protect Hkelkar's socks.


 * D-Boy, Bakasuprman's behavior on AMbroodEY's Fundy Watch issue.


 * In his un-block request repartee, D-Boy makes an interesting comment of DaGizza being as "guilty as some of us." This is yet another example of an admission of guilt and subversive activities.


 * When I warned him about his racial/religious abusing remarks against Dbachmann, Bakasuprman had the nerve to tell me: Monkey See, Monkey Do. That was it - that was all he could say to try and explain his behavior, which he did not think was wrong. I should have blocked him right there.

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington encouraged meatpuppetry, POV-pushing, disruption and was aware of Hkelkar's sockpuppetry

 * In attempting to get Bakasuprman off the hook, Sir Nicholas argued that Bakasuprman's racial and religious abuse against Dbachmann was justified in light of Dbachmann's incivil comment towards Bhadani - a clear violation of WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL/WP:DE. So according to Sir Nicholas, it is OK to attack somebody on racial and religious lines, even if a person like Bhadani can defend himself easily. It is clear that both Sir Nicholas and Bakasuprman believe that Dbachmann is "anti-Hindu," which is why according to their warped logic, it is OK to treat him as some bigoted European imperialist.


 * Sir Nicholas LIED about having seen the evidence, in his hurry to un-block Bakasuprman and others. I never sent him any evidence and nobody else was in possession of the all the different threads of evidence (as noted above, there were 14-15 different mails to examine) that I alone possessed at the time. As can be noted from the conversations with AMbroodEY that I mailed to ArbCom, Sir Nick was not aware of the evidence AMbroodEY had sent me, nor do I think he is aware even at this point.


 * In his haste to un-block Bakasuprman, Sir Nicholas ignored the fact that his block had been endorsed by Aldux, Dbachmann, Steel359, Aksi great, Khoikhoi, DaGizza, Akhilleus, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Ragib (via e-mail), Rudrasharman, Abecedare (via e-mail), Shreshth91 (via e-mail), Proabivouac, Hornplease and Buddhipriya. He also conveniently ignored the fact that the desire of Humus sapiens, Jayjg to have Bakasuprman make a defense on ANI had been satisified.

Sir Nicholas has engaged in sock/meatpuppetry, harassed other users and is a hypocrite on the question of off-Wiki evidence

 * Through this anon IP, Sir Nicholas violated WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT by harassing Malber on his own talkpage, posing as an outside entity. The IP belongs to the same IP area as Sir Nick and if not a sockpuppet, it is likely a meatpuppet, as was evidenced with Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui.


 * Sir Nick blocked Clt13 as a likely sockpuppet of Kuntan based on off-Wiki evidence. I applaud his prompt decisive action, which he did not hesitate to take, but then why is he viciously attacking my obtaining off-Wiki evidence as illegitimate?


 * Sir Nick has sent e-mail solicitations (as disclosed by Moe Epsilon), attempting to rally support against Cyde and un-block Karmafist - . This should affirm Sir Nick's propensity to send e-mails soliciting political support and sneaky motives - I quote: If done with a proper timing, we can get him unblocked and let clowns like Cyde rue the day.


 * I have also forwarded my conversations with AMbroodEY and other established users and administrators, who identify Sir Nick's threatening and belligerent behavior, his extensive misuse of Wikipedia and identify Konstable, Nishkid64 and Riana (who deleted his draft evidence for him - ) as participants in Sir Nick's cabal and acting as meatpuppets, directing their attacks against me and DaGizza on/about this case. This certainly explains Nishkid's and Konstable's vicious attacks against me, his misguided "evidence" aimed at maligning me and the collective eagerness of these four individuals to see Bakasuprman un-blocked.

I exercised considerable discretion in issuing the blocks
Only those with corroborating on-Wikipedia evidence of disruptive behavior were blocked:


 * Priyanath was not blocked only because his editing history did not suggest any disruptive tendency to me. I did not attack him for talking directly or indirectly to Hkelkar and the others, although he certainly should be criticized. AMbroodEY and Bhadani were not blocked. The latter is an editor/admin par excellence with his integrity unparalleled. Both individuals were frankly discussing the issue of Dbachmann's behavior and the possible need for arbitration. I'm not a fool that some people assert that I don't understand the validity of discussing Wikipedia business via e-mail. I respect a frank, private conversation and I have discussed important issues that way as well. I am aware that an ArbCom mailing list and special IRC channels are dedicated to handling Wikipedia business better. Despite his involvement in the mailing list, I vouched for AMbroodEY because he actively helped fight Hkelkar's sockpuppetry and condemned the actions of Hkelkar and Bakasuprman (at least before me) - I do not believe in taking action against anybody if they realize and regret their mistakes. None of my issued blocks were punitive or vindictive.


 * I blocked Anupamsr/Scheibenzahl because of the sockpuppetry that was established. As he had been investigated once as a possible sockpuppet of Hkelkar, I had reason to fear that his now-established sockpuppetry and presence in a mailing list involving Hkelkar was for disruptive purposes. I un-blocked Scheibenzahl when (1) he explained the reason for having adopted a new username (I respect WP:VANISH), that (2) 2 other administrators were aware of his username change and (3) admins in good standing such as Dbachmann and Aksi great vouched for him.

Usage of off-Wikipedia evidence

 * All admins are required to enable their e-mail via Wikipedia. Blocked editors can plead their case to any admin via e-mail. There is an IRC channel for admin work, there is an ArbCom e-mailing list. If there was ever a problem based on some e-mail/IRC interactions, if one of the arbitrators claimed not to have received an e-mail through the mailing list, the committee would deal with it promptly. Now if the off-Wikipedia interactions of the good guys can be considered legitimate, why assume that the bad guys can't use off-Wikipedia channels to disrupt Wikipedia? And why argue that the good guys can't do anything to stop the bad guys? Let me give you some examples:


 * 1) NSLE's sockpuppetry was handled entirely via e-mail by ArbCom. No evidence was provided or required to be presented on-Wikipedia. The community trusted ArbCom.
 * 2) Subhash bose was identified as a sockpuppet of Hkelkar when both accounts sent e-mails to Blnguyen and Aksi great from the same e-mail address. Stupid? Yes, but the e-mails helped resolve the issue.
 * 3) Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt undertook IP analysis to nab the vandal responsible for the Seigenthaler controversy. If there was no on-WP evidence, what was the justification for holding that person responsible? Could he not have made excuses and counter-accusations like Bakasuprman, D-Boy, Sbhushan, Sarvagnya and Konstable?
 * 4) Five admins were recently desysopped owing to account hijacking. These five had their privileges restored because they confirmed their identity via e-mail.
 * 5) Wikipedia is routinely hacked by corporate and self-promoting accounts. Some corporations and entities employ people to edit articles for their purposes. Are you telling me that if we obtained e-mail evidence about corporation X telling user Y to work on certain articles for their purposes, that that is not evidence of corporate infiltration and abuse of Wikipedia?
 * 6) Sir Nick blocked Clt13 as a likely sockpuppet of Kuntan based on off-Wiki evidence. I applaud his prompt decisive action, which he did not hesitate to take, but then why is he viciously attacking my obtaining off-Wiki evidence as illegitimate?


 * There is an explicit precedence in the case of examining the links of editors with radical webgroups in Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Arbitrators could clearly examine the activities of editors who were also active on www.pakhub.info, where they plotted and derived their agenda from. There is no reason why evidence pertaining to the linking of editors to radical Hindutva sites should be ignored or considered illegitimate.


 * There are many intrinsic details within an e-mail that provide assurance of authenticity There are several details in e-mails such as advertisements of e-mail services and its corporate partners, the exact dates and the exact times and time zones the e-mails were sent/received, the format of the messages, the timestamps in chat conversations, possible digital signatures. All of these e-mail writers have their own peculiar use of English, with a plethora of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors that I can never guess that they will make. I'll play Devil's advocate and consider that if I was trying to frame someone, why I un-blocked Scheibenzahl later, why Priyanath and AMbroodEY were not blocked despite their inclusion in this mailing list, why I did not block Sir Nick in the same instance - why there is a separate set of evidence for Sir Nick's nefarious activities. If people are so willing to ascertain if I cooked up evidence, why isn't the same level of scrutiny applied to every single e-mail that is exchanged between every single administrator and arbitrator? How can e-mails sent as verification of identity be considered genuine at all?

Defense of personal conduct

 * I was party to this mailing-list and thereby all the e-mails I have presented as evidence - as this is a "mailing-list," nobody can claim primary ownership of any of these e-mails. Thus nobody's "private conversation" was violated, and I was within my rights to publish these e-mails if I deemed it necessary.


 * I published e-mail evidence on ANI only after several attempts to make sure there were no objections, that others would be OK with it. I clearly emphasized from the beginning that I would refrain from publishing unless the community demanded it . Please note that Sir Nick, albeit in a sarcastic, condescending tone, asked me what I was waiting for . Apparently, friend Sir Nick did not regard this as seriously as he does now (once his own ass is on the line), nor does he respect other people's reservations and my precautions about e-mail evidence. When Bhadani was maligned on ANI, the e-mail he wrote was published and nobody deleted that e-mail for "privacy" concerns. Nobody offered Bhadani any courtesy. This are clearly double-standards.


 * I did not publish any personal information of any users in the e-mails presented at ANI I admit my publication was imprudent and I could have been more careful (and I will in the future) but any accusation that I revealed any personal information that could compromise any user is purely ridiculous. In the e-mail exchange between Bakasurpman and Hkelkar that I published, Bakasuprman identified himself only as "Bakasuprman," and Hkelkar has always used the pseudonym "Desigeek." Of the exchange between Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and AMbroodEY - both users have previously declared their real names themselves - Sir Nicholas had used his real name for his prior ID user:Anirudhsbh and here and here and that word "Anirudh" was the only thing published. AMbroodEY published his name and a bit of biography himself - . How can you accuse me of transgressing their privacy when that information already exists on Wikipedia? As far as publishing e-mail addresses - all of these users have their private e-mails enabled on Wikipedia. If anybody wishes to misuse their email addresses, that can be easily done without the help of anyone else. Yes Sir Nick and AMbroodEY did discuss personal stuff but there was no level of detail that could ever be misused by anyone. I would also like ArbCom to appreciate that if I had actually removed these details, I would be immediately attacked for "doctoring" the evidence. Nevertheless, I made sure I wasn't revealing any explicit evidence that would pose any real threat to anybody.


 * I did not wheel-war with Humus sapiens. Apart from discussing the issue with Humus sapiens, I permitted Bakasuprman to make his comment on ANI as Humus had desired, before re-blocking him. Thus there was no violation of Humus's purpose of un-blocking; neither did he undo my re-blocking. There was a proper, dignified resolution of the question:,, ). That Bakasuprman merely copy-pasted his talkpage comment (, [ pretty much justified my stand that Bakasuprman could make his comment on his talkpage for everyone to see. It is amusing to me how Sir Nick refused to offer the same courtesy to Cindery. As part of his un-blocking rationale, Humus alleged that the block had "no solid evidence," despite the fact that he had never contacted me to see the evidence nor did he give any courtesy to the admins and users who had endorsed the block. Humus and Beit Or wanted Bakasuprman to comment on ANI - both editors were mentioned in Bakasuprman's e-mail to Hkelkar as "Jewish editors" to "befriend." Thus, I had the justification to be concerned that Humus sapiens and Beit Or were being preferential to Bakasurpman. Humus sapien's action was also criticized by administrator Akhilleus -.


 * I have always been open-minded and respectful over blocking issues Disagreement over blocks issued by me prompted Tariqabjotu and KillerChihuahua to over-turn them. I did not respond angrily and we were able to resolve the issues respectfully - I did not undo their actions and respected them despite my faith in the correctness of my actions . When I realized my own mistake in issuing a block, I immediately apologized - . I was criticized by Dbachmann for my block of Haphar - after a heated but frank discussion, Dbachmann respected my rationale and I reduced the duration of Haphar's block to assuage Dab's concerns . When I treated another Wikipedian wrongly over a WP:CN proposal to ban BhaiSaab, I apologized. When I blocked Szhaider, I clearly explained my blocking rationale at ANI and to ArbCom - . Both times I was open-minded and willing to accept any criticism. The committee did not find anything wrong with my action in Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, so why are Sir Nicholas and Nishkid64 whining about it as some heinous crime now? Obviously to cover-up their own crimes.


 * There is a difference between knowing something and being able to prove it This is the only reason why I could not take action against the guilty parties before - I did not have the substantial evidence I have now. I've had many conversations with AMbroodEY over such issues and I've exchanged a few e-mails with Bakasuprman over the issues pertinent to Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, but I could never actually establish that Bakasuprman and others were actually colluding with Hkelkar before I obtained the actual e-mails revealing this. In the interim, I did my best to assume good faith and try and change Bakasuprman's behavior. I consistently advised him both on and off Wikipedia to keep a check on his emotions, respect the policies. In an e-mail Bakasuprman and Sir Nick "threatened" to use against me, I clearly emphasized to Bakasuprman that while we were entitled to our respective opinions, we were never justified in making Wikipedia a battleground.


 * I did not post the e-mails on this evidence page only 1-2 lines, excerpts of e-mail evidence were presented; not the entire emails, and certainly no e-mail address or any personal information. This was akin to paraphrasing and summarizing the e-mails that I have submitted as evidence to arbitrators privately.

The only thing on the line here is Wikipedia - will you, the arbitrators, effectively legitimize meatpuppetry and the continued disruptive activities of banned editors by ruling against examining e-mail evidence? Do you seriously expect to uphold WP:NPOV if you decide to ignore evidence obtained about the collusion of banned editors with active editors, where they discuss strategies to harass productive editors and convert articles into battlegrounds? Will you ignore the fact that an administrator knew about sockpuppetry of Hkelkar, encouraged meatpuppetry and converted Wikipedia into a battleground - all radical abuses against his duty as an administrator?

An amusing excuse given for these people's behavior in private conversations is "Cabals exist everywhere." Apparently, I'm supposed to ignore the Hindutva trolls because they counteract the Islamist trolls. This is some perverse interpretation of WP:NPOV, where you put up rival parties to battle in the hope of preserving a stalemate - that is their understanding of NPOV, apparently.

Thank you, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  04:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sir Nicholas's counter-accusations
It is amusing to read "his evidence" statement, which constitutes nothing except "tit-for-tat" mentality:


 * I have already refuted Sir Nicholas' ridiculous charges on blocking issues and possible abuse of sysop tools. Please note that under all these cases that he talks about as "abuses," not once did he talk to me or criticized those actions.
 * My blocking decisions were upheld at WP:ANI discussions and at Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, so what's Sir Nick's beef now? Obviously something bad-faith to hurl at me.
 * Incivility is a disease, but sometimes a natural response to stressful situations. I do regret my incivil behavior during this ArbCom case (and I don't expect ArbCom to ignore it) but at least I have not edit-warred on this evidence page like Konstable or sought to disrupt Wikipedia by recruiting meatpuppets and harassing other users.
 * Sir Nick, don't be a dick please - Doc Tropics was being coached by me and these sessions were conducted via e-mail. Please note that I never said e-mail communication is "illegitimate" or should be disallowed - in fact, I assert that as it is a legitimate medium, we should not ignore its misuse for the infiltration of Wikipedia and meatpuppetry. Your cheap shot at my admin coaching work is clearly indicative that you have nothing constructive to say.
 * Baka and Sir Nick accuse me of meatpuppetry with Hkelkar (how pathetic) - I loathe Hkelkar's behavior. I strongly endorsed his community ban (personally undertook it) and with the help of AMbroodEY, I have tracked down and blocked many of his sockpuppets -

D-Boy’s connections with banned trolls

 * D-Boy had always shown an incredible amount of affinity towards Hkelkar, as seen when he sent the banned troll a barnstar and his comment when Hkelkar was officially banned by the ArbCom.


 * This diff suggests that Hkelkar tried to contact D-Boy through email


 * D-Boy and Hkelkar have even contacted another banner Hindutvaadi troll User:Maleabroad through email.

Dangerous-Boy’s general trollish behaviour

 * Despite warning and pleading on him on numerable occasions, D-Boy refused to accept Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. One of my earlier warnings is here (Note: My warning is in the last section -Emerging Superpowers- on the now mostly deleted talk page of User:Nobleeagle)


 * However he continued to disrespect NPOV. In this instance, rather than address his notion that I am a "traitor" with me, he decides to tell User:Bhadani here and . As you see, he also called User:Dbachmann (Henceforth "dab") a "traitor." What I find strange is that D-Boy assumes here and on the previous post that Indians/Hindus are supposed to be loyal to each other, even if they disobey the Wiki-laws. There is only one thing which I am loyal to and that is Wikipedia itself. If a bunch of Hindu editors ignore WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and other fundamental policies, I am not going to support them as D-Boy wants me to.


 * Again in response to his comment to Bhadani, I urged him to understand that Wikipedia cannot survive if POVs dominate over others . Dab also appreciates D-boy's contributions but reinforces what I had previously told him Contrary to their opinion, Dab doesn't have any sort of agenda against Indians or Hindus. He merely gets frustrated and angry rather quickly when nationalists continously troll the pages he contributes to, which was what lead to his infamous "Sh--hole" comment. You can't expect him to act like an angel every single time this occurs. The encouraging sign is that dab realises his past mistakes and is willing to control his temper and avoid controversial articles much more now.


 * Something interesting I found was D-Boy's response to my warnings. You may notice that my warning on Nobleeagle's talk page occurred on 7 February this year. On 8 February, D-Boy replaced his userpage with a single sentence . If you check his Special:Contribution at that time  you will realise the only person Brutus (who is a "coward") refers to is me. Later after things heated up even further, as you see currently on his User-page, he changed coward to "traitor," which resembles what he called me during my second major confrontation with him.

His deep Anti-Christian prejudices
Despite these edits being quite old, they show his hatred towards Christianity very clearly. Though everyone is entitled to their opinion, his POV is so strong that I believe it is almost incompatible with WP:NPOV.    

Wikipedia as a battleground
Before I conclude here, I would like to draw the comitee's attention to this statement posted by Arvind, which IMO presents the most prescient insight into the matters underlying this case, as well as related previous arbcom cases (Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar and Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan to name just two).

I concur with Arvind, that the main issue here is that some users honestly believe that wikipedia is a battleground (rather than an encyclopedia) on where they need to defend their religion/ideology/country (which in this case just happens to be Hinduism/Hindutva/India) and fight enemy forces by whatever means possible. And the "battleground" is not just a metaphor, but is sometime meant literally. For instance, the same "jesussucks" who posted the wikipedia guide on the Hindu Unity forum, also composed this "the revolutionary's guide to conquering south asia & bey", from which I quote: "After the government has been taken. A period of stabilization will be needed. Xtians, jihadis, and commies will need to be placed in "reducation camps". History can basically tell you want will happen to undesirables. Also, unity must strictly be emphased. Institution of English, Sanskrit, and a south indian-proto (tamil?) should be instituted. 3 langauges is enough and causes everyone to sacrifice. The chinese shove mandarin down everyone elses throat. Once India is secured and stabilized, a convential army will be needed. Probably using Indian army equipment, the next target is PAKiSTAN! For this, total warfare must be used along the lines of Rommel and ghenghis khan. All pak male jihadis must be liquidated by the sword. None of them should be spared because as history as shown pigs will bite you in the ass like Mamud of ghor. Clerics must also be liquidated since the are the keepers and knowledge of the child raping prophet. The women should be take for future breeding purposes possibly given to the soldiers as rewards like the romans would do. Please note, I am assuming this conventional army will be able to plow into pak like in the 1971 war." It should be pretty obvious, why the mode of thinking expressed in the quote above is not compatible with wikipedia's aim to be a neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia created by editors working in an harmonious environment.

Caveat: I don't mean to paint all the editors named as respondents in this case by the same broad stroke of Hkelkarites or Hindutva POVpushers. The arbcom. will have to judiciously go over the evidence that others and I have presented, pick what is relevant and judge each individual editor's action on- and off-wiki. I don't envy them the task! Abecedare 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Buddhipriya
I do not have specific evidence to present, but I have compiled some general background information regarding the issues related to Hindu nationalism which underly this case in the following posting on the talk page for the case:. Since this material is not direct evidence I did not feel it would be correct procedure to post the material here, but the clerk for the case suggested that a mention of this be made here. I am not a party to the case as far as I know; I edit Hinduism articles regularly and am aware of the general issues. Buddhipriya 09:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dbachmann
I am confident this very page will serve as a sample providing the arbcom with an excellent impression of the sort of vitriol, ideological bias and desperate filibustering an academic editor has to put up with in this area, and I remind the arbcom that it is its purpose to enforce an editing environment that allows polite and detached debate based on academic sources and Wikipedia policy (as opposed to murky sentiment and ideological blog postings).

What we have here is clearly the understanding of "Wikipedia as battleground". It will be noted that academic sources play no part whatsoever here. We do not have two opinions that vie for representation, we have two irreconcilable approaches to editing, i.e. "SAVE HINDU DHARAM (sic) PROTECT IT IN THE MEDIA: Revert the following articles" vs. "Wikipedia neutrally reports on academic positions weighed by their respective notability". I am a dogmatic adherent of the latter approach, which has the significant advantage of being in harmony with Wikipedia policy. All the ensuing epic mudslinging is only the aftermath, increasingly irritated reactions to a fundamental refusal to  respect basic policy. I won't bother to list diffs to the abuse and obscenities directed at me in the course of this, since, of course, these edits are all by a plethora of anonymuses and driveby-vandal accounts (Bakasuprman enjoys fanning the flames here and there, but not in a way that could earn him an immediate block), vandals rounded up on mailing lists by the people here of course. There has been more of a century of learned publications of all aspects of Hinduism, including the currents advertised here. It is certainly not asking too much to expect proponents to reference whatever their point is to such academic treatments (as opposed to cheap sectarian pamphlets). My recommendation would be, if you want to "SAVE HINDU DHARAM", go to a library and read about it first. You can then still cherry-pick, but at least you'll be cherry-picking academic opinions. I'm not much interested in "is it true or not", what counts is an accurate report of academic mainstream.

Sbhushan in his drawn-out vilification of my person above is the only editor who even bothers ot claim to have "sourced" his material. A review of Talk:Out_of_India_theory in context will reveal the angelic patience, far beyond what can be reasonably expected, in trying to scrape whatever merit there might have been in his confused additions, before giving up in exasperation. Sbhushan has found no mediator willing to translate his material into coherent English as I have repeatedly asked him, because, I submit, this isn't something that can be done. dab (𒁳) 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)