Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Blnguyen

Comments on vote by User:Haphar

 * 1) Comment. I suspect this comment is provoked by the recent arbitration case involving User:BhaiSaab and User:Hkelkar, which resulted in both those users being banned for a year. Understandably, this has caused a lot of outrage among their friends, and since User:Blnguyen was one of the most proactive admins in preventing the dispute from getting out of control, there's apparently some ill-will against him. So I think it's important to note that Blnguyen's rationale in blocking BhaiSaab was unanimously upheld by ArbCom, and that even a cursory look at that page will make it obvious the Blnguyen can't be accused of "protecting" editors like Hkelkar or User:Subhash Bose, or having some sort of vendetta against users like BhaiSaab or User:TerryJ-Ho. Having seen the IRC conversation mentioned, it's apparent Blnguyen wasn't trying to prove that Hkelkar and Subhash Bose were weren't sockpuppets. --Xiaopo (Talk) 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment.To quote from Xiaopo comment above "it's apparent Blnguyen wasn't trying to prove that Hkelkar and Subhash Bose were sockpuppets."- Exactly my point, he was in fact trying to prove that they were not sockpuppets ( whereas they were). And I have had no "friendship" with anyone involved in the arbcom- just that even before the situation reached arbcom I had several instances where Blnguyen encouraged the sockpuppet duo of Hkelkar and Subhash Bose,( duly pointed out by me to Blnguyen even back then and not even responded to by Blnguyen) whereas he was not so tolerant of anyone opposed to them. Which made the duo more and more disruptive. Which is why Blnguyen does NOT know how to control a situation, and conversely makes it worse. Plus the grandstanding ( putting issues raised to Blnguyen as a vote to show how neutral he is) is not in line with behaviour expected from a person on the Arbcom. Haphar 06:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whoops, typo! You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I just want to make it clear that Blnguyen's actions vis-à-vis BhaiSaab were endorsed by ArbCom, that he wasn't involved as an editor in the edit wars between Hkelkar and BhaiSaab, and that he did block User:Subhash_bose multiple times, as well as being instrumental in blocking Bose's sockpuppet, User:Pusyamitra Sunga. --Xiaopo (Talk) 06:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The issue in the first place is of the action he "should have" and "did not" take against Bose/Hkelkar. There were "more" opportunities of docking these, that were ignored and even "minor" transgressions that under rule of law implementable were actioned agianst those opposed to Bose/Hkelkar. Also the IRC was only set up with one purpose - to prove that Hkelkar/Subhash Bose are not sockpuppets, there is no other "issue" discussed in the IRC.Haphar 07:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy that Blnguyen was following with Hkelkar and Bose is called AGF. Hkelkar and Bose had appeared simultaneously on IRC during the chat and we could do little but believe their story at that time. But I find your conduct alarming. Soon after voting oppose on this page you go to the only person who had opposed Blnguyen's RFA and ask him to look at the arbcom elections with the words - "some of the candidates in contention might surprise you". - Aksi_great (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but the point is that the AGF was not extended to people opposing Hkelkar and Bose. Specially looking at some of the language and comments that Bose was using it was more than surprising. I am not aware of the RFA opposition, but in the Bose case Anwar_saadat was involved, please check the history, And I definitely want to inform someone who was involved in the situation that I am referring to. Haphar 07:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What an utterly ridiculous rationale and to go and spam on other pages to vote against Blnguyen is indeed alarming -- Samir धर्म 08:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Spam ? How many user pages has this Spam been on ? And there is no asking for any vote.And please do mind your language and hold accusations. Haphar 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is spamming for oppose votes: some of the candidates in contention might surprise you. It's very hard to see how you don't see this as inappropriate.  And when you cite the rationale that you did, please be advised that I will call you out on it being ridiculous -- Samir धर्म  09:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So if there is someone who was involved in a discussion, and you want to bring them in to a voting where the discussion is on it is inappropriate ? And "spam" by definition is multiple messages / mail to people you have no interaction with soliciting something. Here there is no solicitation and the other party is someone who is known AND it is not a multiple mail.  Haphar 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SPAM carefully. By couching your vote-solicitation in niceties such as "Some of the candidates in contention might surprise you", I think you are attempting to solicit oppose votes -- Samir धर्म  09:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do read it before asking others- from WP:SPAM :- "An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article.". It also mentions "stacking the vote"- contacting one person is hardly "stacking" and  Samir is not assuming good faith and taking the most radical interpretation of my contacting one other person. I think Assume Good Faith applies even to admins. Haphar 09:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You clearly voiced an opinion in your statement: it is disruptive to garner votes on user talk pages with comments like "Some of the candidates in contention might surprise you" immediately after voting here -- Samir धर्म 09:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that Blnguyen was far more strict towards User:Subhash bose than any other users involved in the dispute. this can be inferred from the block logs of involved users. Its just that he is not crying foul and its others who are making a fuss about it.nids(&#9794;) 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If that was the case he would not be trying to vote for Blnguyen- . Haphar 09:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(Enough indents) He voted for Blnguyen because Hkelkar/Bose thought that he acted in neutral manner, precisely the quality someone on ArbCom should have. GizzaChat  &#169; 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you did read the whole mail trail then you would understand that my point is Blnguyen was biased in favour of Hkelkar/Bose ( and tolerated them at the expense of other users). ?In which case Hkelkar/Bose voting for Blnguyen shows more proof of bias than of neutrality. If Hkelkar/Bose had voted against Blnguyen your interpretation would have been correct. Haphar 10:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the whole mail trail and understand your point that you think "Blnguyen was in favour of Hkelkar/Bose" but I don't see any evidence. The only evidence I see is that Blnguyen indefinitely blocked his push sung sock and blocked Subhash bose on a number of occasions . Did he block the users on "the other side" more often or more than they deserved to compared with Subhash? If he didn't then he acted neutral. Please provide some evidence. GizzaChat  &#169; 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Blnguyen has been quite lenient with you. Considering that you were trolling and making personal attacks  , you got off very lightly. He could have blocked everyone for every little transgression that they made, but that would not have solved any problem. It must be noted that the only people who are making claims about Blnguyen not being neutral are those who have been blocked by him in the past for NPA, 3RR and trolling. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First let me point it out that it is not I seeking a vote here, and if one is looking into the past both sides of a story should be presented and not just one that supports his or her theory. AND since this page is only talking about issues I have raised, the previous post does insinuate that I have been banned for NPA, 3RR and trolling . I have had only one ban, yes by Blnguyen and for reverting to taunts by Neta. I am assuming that the insinuation against me was not the intent of the admin and would request the admin making the comment to acknowledge that.


 * Moving on to presenting the other side here are the "originals" to which I was responding when very selectively quoted above. Forgive me for presenting only one side, since everyone else is presenting the other side's case.
 * ,
 * , Though it is reverting, it is not Trolling, and the leniency in question is to whom ? Please read the original remarks above and judge if they needed a ban or not too.Aksi do comment upon it since you have not hesitated to just pass judgement on me above.
 * Also here is the mot point that at least Blnguyen was missing, and I would want in an arbcom member-people who use strong language and sarcastic remarks are disruptive and provocative, and unless controlled lead to more and more people responding and then causing a fight- trolling, so though the effect- trolls and respondents need to be taken care of, the causes need to be nipped in the bud much much earlier. Please see the case history of Neta/Hkelkar to see so much of effort wasted due to someone's language and tendency for stong comments not being curbed in time.


 * All who are looking into the history, it would not take too much efort to find a lot more comments by Neta which are monumentally stronger than the ones above, and were brought to Blinguyens notice, and did not elicit a response from the admin, wheras he was very prompt to slap my wrists as well as others. This is why the situation escalated and lead to an Arbcom that took up a huge amount of time. All of which could have been avoided it Blnguyen was not so tolerant of this user Hkelkar/Bose.


 * However since all the effort is only to prove Blnguyen right and me wrong,Let me do some of this work, so here is a list of "some" Neta comments, and it is not all and they are not his worst. Going through it, it is surprising that he was allowed to go on as long as he did by Blnguyen. These were not reacted to by Blnguyen, and he was aware of them.
 * , here read the comments about being a sympathiser of terrorsit orgs ,
 * check the edit summary comment here ,,,,Check the last line of this nice "discourse",,,,,Please do look at the comments in brackets here
 * For the uninitated "pak" refers to "Pakistani's" and used derogatorily to tag people as pro muslim and anti hindu, and yes there were times when I got provoked and reacted, so I am not claiming to be in the right, but it was surprising that people getting targeted by Neta's comments and responding were getting slapped much more and harder than Neta. There were very few and feeble attempts to control Neta, and more signs of collaborating with him ( ie the IRC chat) and using the chat to even comment on wikipedia users ( such as myself) in a derogatory manner. Which is not expected from an admin let alone one wanting to be on the arbcom.


 * Further when the issues were discussed with him, and pointed out that there appears to be a bias, the admin ( Blnguyen) takes a lot of disputes that have been raised to him, compiles them and uses it as a voting board for people to guess his religion and his bias. A very un admin like thing to do again, not one that would raise faith in anyone who is looking for help rather than popularity contests and personal vindication campaigns by the admin. Forgive me for having high expectations from an admin and even higher from an admin wanting to be an Arbcom member. Haphar 10:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to prove here. Yes, we know that User:Subhash bose was extremely disruptive, and I don't think anyone disputes that; that's why he was banned (under the guise of Hkelkar). We also know that User:BhaiSaab was disruptive, which is why he was banned for a year by the ArbCom as well. What you need to show is that Blnguyen blocked people out of proportion to their disruptiveness, and frankly, I'm not seeing it. As Blnguyen pointed out, he's blocked Subhash_bose a grand total of 21 days, nearly three times as long as he's blocked BhaiSaab , and considerably longer than he blocked you (2 days). He also blocked User:Pusyamitra Sunga, despite being the only one to know that he was Netaji's sockpuppet—if you call that "protecting Netaji," you have a very strange idea of protection. Looking back at the crossfire, if he was being lenient with anyone, it was you. Until you can come up with some sort of actual evidence of bias (i.e., actual links, and not just to Netaji's flamewars, or perhaps the ratio of Blnguyen's blocks to a user's total blocks), this just looks like a very strange little vendetta. It's telling that the other people who followed the Netaji/Hkelkar/BhaiSaab fiasco, including one of the arbitrators involved in the case, have very different views on Blnguyen. --Xiaopo (Talk) 01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you do take a lot of effort to dig up the data, it's a bit surprising that some issues mentioned by me repeatedly have not been spotted by you. I have posted the link's earlier on Blnguyen talkpage of the IRC chat session where he badmouths me to Hkelkar and Neta. An admin commenting to other users on IRC about a 3rd user not even present. Not done and not neutral. You can't find the link tell me and I will dig that up for you too.
 * 2. On my raising issues of bias with him directly, Blnguyen takes the whole thing as a joke and posts it on his talkpage as an issue to vote upon his neutrality. When you go to an admin to talk about a bias, you are not asking for him to put it to vote, I can ask people their opinion myself you are looking for him to respond to you with his logic,as well as telling him that there is a perception about him. an admin grandstanding like that is not looking for responding or setting the record right but getting caught up in an ego trip. Again if you do not get this information tell me and I will get it for you.

This is not arbcom admin like behaviour. Not in my book, so excuse me for having an opinion different from yours. It's also telling that within people involved in the arbcom discussions the faultlines are very clearly that the Hkelkar camp supports Blnguyen and the anti Neta/Hkelkar camp does not, so please do understand that brute majority is not neccecarily equal to ownership of truth. Coming back to the Neta examples if the obsession was not to show me as wrong maybe someone could see and compare the comments and see if brought to an admins notice whether an admin needs to take action or not. " Islam is equal to bombing" or comments to that effect were made by Neta, brought to Blnguyen's attnention and not responded to by Blnguyen at all. This after he warns people for responding to Neta. Again if you cannot find this being posted on Blnguyen's site tell me. I do have a life outside of wiki, and


 * 2. My posts of Neta above are to show what did not get Neta even a warning from Blnguyen. My warning was for insignificant stuff and the block too was for stuff that was at best equal to Neta's petulance. so I got a warning from Blnguyen about reverting to Neta- I posted on Blnguyen's talkpage much more inflammatory language used by Neta and asked if that was justified and did not deserve any action- silence. So for the language I used and the ban I got, the language used by Neta ( as documented above and please dig in you can find at least 50 more in the same vein) was tolerated, Neta was so disruptive that his non banned occurances were worse than any of Bhai Saab, Merry J Ho or anyone else involved in the arbcom case. ( and they got 1 year bans for getting baited by him).

So what if Blnguyen did a 21 day blcok, That is the bone of contention here, he should have had 210 days of blocks, the 21 days count for nothing and did not stop it from becoming an arbcom case that is still causing a debate. If Blnguyen had done his job well Neta would have had to improve behaviour to survive.Haphar 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not have the power to unlaterally ban people like that. That's what arbcom is for - it's for banning people who can't be banned unilaterally, unlike vandals. As pointed out here, you made jibes about others using marijuana and terrorists yourself, in the same arguments, so I can either block both or neither. Seeing as on the questions page I pointed out your strong dissent when I asked you to stop arguing with an account which is already blocked, I can only imagine how you would respond if I blocked you for making jibes about drug use and terrorism. As I already pointed out with diffs on the question page and elsewhere, contrary to your claims, the time you were blocked so was Subhash. I also warned Netaji frequently, contrary to your claims. I may point out to you that my block of BhaiSaab was unanimously endorsed by the ArbCom in their finding that BhaiSaab made provocative comments - Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar - In the above post you feel that my block of BhaiSaab citing "anti-semitism" was out of order, then you evidently feel that BhaiSaab's actions in walking up to a declared Jew and making comments like "Ahmadinejad is awesome" is permissible. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Look, I don't have time to debate this ad nauseam. I just want to point out that your contention that only Hkelkar's supporters are pro-Blnguyen is patently false. I presented evidence against Hkelkar in the ArbCom case (see Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence), and User:Fred Bauder is certainly not pro-Hkelkar either—he was the one who proposed the one year ban against him. In any case, admins generally can't give out blocks longer than a week. Evidently, you think Netaji's disruption was a lot worse than BhaiSaab. Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's worth noting that the ArbCom gave Hkelkar (Netaji's sock), BhaiSaab, and TerryJ-Ho equal bans of one year. --Xiaopo (Talk) 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, you can see that Hornplease who called for a ban of Bakasuprman, in isolation to other users, also supported me. So I got a support from a user who was more strongly against Hkelkar's group than even the arbitration committee. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In case anyone still following this discussion is capable of changing their mind, I think I should clarify that while I agree that Subhash Bose should ideally have been slapped down a lot earlier than he was, I cannot fault BL's behavior in this case. I disagree with his contention that that the levels of incivility in India-related articles are so high that the bar for blocking should be higher than elsewhere, but I find no fault in his evenhandedness in applying that bar. Haphar, even if Netaji's disruption was worse than Bhaisaab's - and I see no reason why it should be - you must recall that Netaji's bursting onto the scene was at about the same time that BL first started feeling his way about the Hindutva POV-wars; I would not expect an admin with little previous exposure to these debates, on WP or in the real world, to come in and determine who started it and marginally adapt sentences to reflect that when there is current incivility on both sides.
 * On the contrary, it does him immense credit that he tried, when, as he has pointed out to me in the past, most South Asian admins avoid these things like the radioactive dumps they are. That alone should persuaded people that this chap wants to solve problems. Hornplease 09:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This guy is so freaking neutral, it's not even funny. He never favors one side more than the other.  He listens to each case with extreme patience and analyzes it thoroughly.--D-Boy 09:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He might have been with you, that was not my experience. Haphar 10:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Being blocked for two days and you say you got a raw deal? I myself have gotten blocked for three days by Blnguyen, and that too on a charge later proven false. If anyone should be angry its me right? But no, Blnguyen admitted his mistake and infact helped me deal with a troll that tried to defame me with the false allegations. If nothing he's gone easy on you, especially given the nonsense you spewed on User talk:Shiva's Trident. Baka man  05:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then how about the fact that you got an apology from him ? That can make amends right ? If you had complained and he put your complaint on to his talkpage as a point for users to vote upon maybe you would feel differently too. And the language you are using  ie-"nonsense you spewed on" is trolling and inflammatory. Now this is precisely the kind of stuff that I got warned and blocked for. So if I see Blnguyen warning you for it I might reconsider my position, but I doubt if that would happen. Which is precisely what Blnguyen tolerated in Neta/Hkelkar as well as you. Haphar 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You got blocked for violations of wiki is not a battleground and personal attacks. I called you messages on SB's talk page "nonsense", commenting on the content rather than you, the "contributor". Baka man  23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely at a loss here. The history is long and tangled but from what I can see Blnguyen handed out some "difficult" blocks. We should not be punishing that... I gather the blocks got reviewed, and seem to have general support. Those opposing should ask if that's really what we want, admins that are not confident enough to do the right thing and that follow the herd. I don't think so. No change in my support. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved from oppose section

 * Oppose due to failure to maintain anything close to a NPOV on Marcus Einfeld article.I elliot 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have never touched this article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. For failure to control a sockpuppet that caused a major arbitration case of Netaji and Hkelkar. Blnguyen's protection of the User's caused most of the user's transgressions. And he arranged and participated in IRC sessions to try and prove that the sockpuppet was not a sockpuppet. Also used the IRC sessions to inappropriately comment on wiki user's religion. He also held opionion surveys based on issues raised to him by users- to showcase how allegedly neutral he is, shows a grandstanding self propogation that is not suited for this role. Haphar 14:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please read my response to Haphar's questions. People can also read the Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar which has just concluded. In short, I blocked Subhash_bose four times for a total of 21 days, and blocked his sockpuppet User:Pusyamitra Sunga via email evidence, which I could have kept to myself had I wanted to patronise the activities of the users as Haphar asserts. Hkelkar and Netaji were not blocked by anybody because there wasn't conclusive evidence to do so. I did not lobby in IRC for them to be kept I only told them to go there if to present their case to some other admins. In any case, they were told not to edit in pairs, and Netaji has been inactive since when Hkelkar became active anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Further discussion has been moved to the talk page.