Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence

Posting of private e-mails
In my case, a user had posted a private e-mail sent by me to several users at the ANI, and many editors have relished and enjoyed that post, and people had cornered me, and put me to unnecessary stress: I was practically made to kneel down like a criminal and had to beg pardon! There may be several such instances about which I am not aware of. Now, when despite great reluctance, Rama posted the e-mails, people are talking in a different way. My observations show that Rama was forced to post private e-mails to validate his decision as an administrator, and by doing this he did nothing wrong to subvert any of the wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. In my opinion, off-wiki evidences are acceptable under exceptional certain circumstances if it is proved that editors did anything to subvert the decision of the ArbCom. Right now, I do not have any opinion about the merit of the case, and I may come with further comments depending on the progress. --Bhadani (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, this incidence (of my kneeling down) was reported like great news in some google groups! And, no one in a million plus wikipedians asked that user at the ANI that he should not have posted that private e-mail! --Bhadani (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Bhadaniji. The e-mails contained real names of contributors, e-mail addresses of contributors, conversation that was irrelevant to the accusations of "cabalism" (but may be deemed sensational by others), and logs of a conversation that occurred on Google Talk that Nirav was not a participant in.  This is private information that should not be plastered all over ANI, under any circumstance.  Posting this was a serious breach of confidentiality in my opinion, and I am quite upset that Nirav does not seem to realize the gravity of his action (by apologizing to people affected, and by requesting oversight of his edits).  In my opinion, this is as big of an issue in this RfAr as the allegations of cabalism -- Samir 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. I respect your right to disagree. I may have strong views but I like you all. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail evidence policy
The original 'clerk notes' on the Request for Arbitration page included this statement: "Private e-mail should not be posted here. E-mail it directly to any arbitrator if you feel it is important to the case. Thatcher131 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)" That statement was deleted from the 'clerk notes' when the case was opened. Considering the serious objections raised by Konstable, SBhushan, Dangerous-Boy, Bakasuprman, and myself regarding the use of the email 'evidence' in this case, it would be helpful to have a clear statement from the Arbitration Committee on if, and how, this evidence can be used.

If that original statement is still in effect, it raises the question of how can people defend themselves against evidence that only the prosecutor and judges can see? How can the larger community discuss the merits of a case where some evidence can be seen only by the admins prosecuting the case, and the arbitration committee? &#2384; Priyanath talk 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish you would not be so obviously flawed in your reasoning - Only the prosecutor and judges can see? They wrote those e-mails. They know exactly what the problem is, on what basis the actions were taken. If they cannot dig into their inboxes to find the relevant e-mails, tough cheese... Konstable's allegations are not so much serious as day-dreaming nonsense and I will show exactly why. And last but not least, this is not a court of law. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rama, the problem is that emails can be forged, or be out of context. Without knowing what you are trying to present as evidence, no one can comment on it. I do not mean to say the emails are forged! It is just about credibility.
 * A: Here is the evidence to hang him, your Highness!
 * B: What's in that black box?
 * King: Hmm..., the evidence is compelling!
 * A: Indeed it is! It calls for immediate action.
 * B: What's in that black box?
 * A: You should know, you committed the crime!
 * B: And what evidence you have?
 * King: I have seen it!

--Scheibenzahl 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, please stop saying that it is not a court etc. If this is wikipedia, then how come offwiki emails between two people be of any relevance to it? One should always remember that blocks are preventive, not punitive!

Pending further clarification from the committee, e-mails should not be posted publically as evidence unless the sender and all recipients consent. For now, hold any e-mail evidence until we hear from the arbitrators as to whether they will consider it and if so, to what address is should be sent. Only the arbitrators can decide how much credibility to attach to any particular message. I would assume that if they accept submission of private emails, they will also give the parties an opportunity to respond (privately) so all parties should probably have wikipedia e-mail enabled for this case, if you don't already. Thatcher131 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. &#2384; Priyanath talk 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain something to me?
Okay, so I admit it: I don't understand. So people are trying to decide whether or not it's appropriate to disclose the content of emails. But, here's what I don't understand. Presumably, since any blocks (or other punitive/preventive actions) are designed to address wikipedia policy violations, for the sake of preventing future wikipedia policy violations, why should the "email evidence" have any significance in the first place? If somebody's screwing with articles, then there should be in-wikipedia evidence to that effect. If people actually are colluding, then this should be reflected by diffs, right? So, why do emails play any part in this at all? I mean, if someone were sending death threats, then I could understand. But, if the concern is with editing cabals and such, if there isn't enough direct evidence in the logs to support the claim, doesn't that imply that there isn't really a problem? If somebody can cite actual vandalism or significant coordinated disruption, then the "email evidence" is really just gravy, and not necessary. And if there isn't such conduct, demonstrable by diffs, then doesn't that mean there isn't yet anything to prove anyways? Seriously, these aren't rhetorical questions. I'd really like to understand the rationale here. (Here or on my own talk page, if you don't want to clutter things up here) Bladestorm 07:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If the emails demonstrate intent to co-ordinate editing in a disruptive pattern, then they are useful. Spotting one disruptive editor is difficult; teams of deliberately disruptive editors are often impossible to distinguish from a random frothing bunch of nationalists. (See WP:DE; That pattern might be exhibited naturally or artificially.) Hornplease 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So... is this arbitration case related to the "intent" to disrupt? Or actual disruption that's already occurred? Because I still don't understand here. Presumably, it can't be a pre-emptive strike against the intent to do harm, because surely the arbitration committee has more important things to occupy their time with than trying to determine what people intend to do in the future. And if it's disruption that's already occurred, then I don't understand why diffs aren't enough evidence. If edits are so bad that they'd warrant a block in concert, then they should presumably be severe enough to be able to establish their disruptive effects when taken individually. And if the only way to prove that the (as-yet unidentified) edits are intentionally disruptive is to "poison the well" with email evidence, then it implies (at least, to me) that it's best to not look at the email "evidence".
 * Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself here, so first a simpler question: Have they already performed several demonstrably intentional disruptive edits? For example, since I'm a Tekkaman Blade fan, I'll arbitrarily choose Dangerous-Boy as an example. Has he demonstrably and verifiably performed disruptive edits, that could be proven before the email evidence is presented to explain motives? Bladestorm 07:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether a user has been genuinely disruptive is a question of interpretation, which is where ArbCom comes in. If intent can be demonstrated, then his actions can be scrutinised in that light and the task gets easier. Hornplease 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But, isn't that somewhat backwards? To first decide whether or not a person intends to be disruptive, and then look for edits to back it up? Wouldn't it be more fair to do the opposite? To handle problems when edits stand out?
 * But, either way, I think I at least understand the position now. So thank you for that. Bladestorm 08:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am waiting anxiously for Rama to provide this evidence of disruption - yet given his appalling behaviour I somehow think that it does not exist. For the mean time I feel like digging up some emails from users I had myself blocked indefinitely earlier on and talking to them about Wikipedia - just to show off that I can and no "sexy boy Rama" on some website can tell me whom I can or cannot talk to outside Wikipedia. The worst thing that could happen is Rama publishing my email with my real name in a true "good-faith" style, "protect the wiki" and all that.--Konstable 08:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you're listening, or have investigated the editing pattern of the blocked users. Until you do so, and have read the earlier HKelkar RfArb, I strongly suggest that your comments will come across as uninformed. I look forward to hearing what you have to say subsequent to your acquainting yourself with this history. Hornplease 08:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you quite understand what I'm saying, but I have better things to do than explain things to you.--Konstable 05:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of 'this evidence of disruption' don't I understand?
 * If you have so many better things to do, then don't waste everyone's time here. I think I was perfectly civil in my response; perhaps you had better review the level of civility you have displayed on this page. Hornplease 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will just say that when two people meet and talk, the intent cannot be shown. "Our social relationships are limited, most of the time, to gossip and criticizing people's behavior." - Ingmar Bergman. May be this will explain the reliability of such chats and logs.--Scheibenzahl 12:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "random frothing bunch of nationalists". Wikipedia has NO policy to stop such people. It is this kind of uncivil attack that compels other people to reply in the same tone. Wikipedia policies talk about "no disruption" and "maintaining NPOV", not "lets all be communist", or "that site is exteremist according to me, and that user is adding it, we need to get him banned!".--Scheibenzahl 12:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, nobody is 'compelling' anyone to reply in a particular way.
 * Also, WP policy isnt to 'stop' nationalists; but the 'frothing' and 'bunch' bits are considered worth stopping. Hornplease 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering the example Bladestorm gave(of death threats by email), my take is that even then, Wikipedia Arbcom has no business investigating it. It is entirely for the law enforcement agencies to investigate.  Not the arbcom.  If User:X receives a threat from User:Y via email, I'd expect X to take it to the police and not the arbcom on wikipedia!
 * Also, since some people keep straining to point out that Arbcom is not a court of law, I have to point out that, that is all the more reason, why the Arbcom has no business peeping into private emails. In most countries, I am sure that the law enforcement agencies have the right to investigate if they suspect intent.  The Arbcom has no such right.  Wikipedia has no such right.  Not even under any of Wikipedia's own policies!  Wikipedia as it is governed by the same laws that govern individuals and businesses, has no right to peek into private emails.  Sarvagnya 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you cite statutes and/or case law for your contention about "private emails"? My understanding has always been that if I email you, the email belongs to you once it's on your system.  It's only courtesy that could oblige you to keep the contents to yourself, or to ask my permission before revealing it to others; but you don't have to.  And there is a material difference between ArbCom unilaterally snooping into email and being shown email by an intended recipient.  We may argue the niceties, but the idea is absurd that ArbCom should not look at email evidence.  rudra 03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * great. so then the evidence should be thrown out by your standards becausefor starters I've never emailed Rama's arrow.  he shouldn't have my email address.  there's a reason I don't have my email on mytalk or user page.  it's private!  and you should not be reading it.--D-Boy 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My take
Several people are intent on converting this into a mud-slinging, bitching contest - I am not. I am not interested in participating in speculation, accusations or bickering. This is a serious case with some complex issues, so I expect people to contribute in a sane and constructive manner or mind their own business. Within a couple of days, I will submit my entire case, full evidence (both emails and on-WP) to the arbitration committee privately. I will present the case here as well, but only with on-WP evidence and a few important excerpts of the emails that are crucial to identify, understand and keep in context the entire issue and nothing that can be classified as inappropriate or an invasion of privacy. My goal is to give the committee all the information I have so it can make the best decision possible. On the issue of private e-mails, I will make myself abundantly clear. In my case statement, I have already apologized and explained the circumstances to a large degree. For now, it should suffice to add that I agree with some of the things Samir has said in his evidence statement. I will briefly take the liberty to say that Konstable's accusations are stupid and pure nonsense. They are even malicious, I would say, given his desire to portray me as a trolling admin when the case hasn't even gotten afoot and that he hasn't read my statement and evidence. I don't remember him saying anything about this case on ANI, but now willing to point fingers and start a blame-game. It is infinitely infuriating to me to read any such accusations, as I have been rigidly committed to the goals of Wikipedia - my loyalty and work is for Wikipedia and nothing, no one else. I didn't come here to re-enact famous Supreme Court cases. However, for the sake of this case and to not add to the confusion some people like Konstable are intent on creating, I will provide exhaustive evidence and a comprehensive case statement that will answer all questions and help others and mainly the committee understand what has happened and why, as promised in a couple of days. Cheers, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And no, dear Konstable, Scheibenzahl or anybody else - I'm not gonna waste my time and energy trying to bandy words with y'all. It is "off-ArbCom" chatter (don't wise crack - this bickering has nothing to do with the main proceedings) that is not in the least bit helpful or constructive in any way. Reserve your thoughts until all involved parties have submitted their statements and evidence. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rama's Arrow, let's try and assume good faith here. This is obviously going to be a very heated and emotional RfA because of the complex issues, and the friendships involved. It's only adding fuel to the fire by dismissing other's comments as 'chatter', 'bickering', 'mudslinging', and 'bitching'. Both Konstable and Scheibenzahl, each in their own style, were making valid arguments about the admissibility of the email evidence, which is an important part of this case. Further, I believe that both of them, just like yourself and everyone here, have what they believe to be the best interests of Wikipedia in mind when they make their arguments. &#2384; Priyanath talk 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please re-read Konstable's comments and lemme know if there is an iota of good faith in his insane accusations about my "atrocious" conduct, especially at this point. He has not bothered to wait for any of the evidence or full statements of involved parties before personally attacking me as as if I were a troll. His evidence is bogus and makes me suspect his command over the English language. My dismissal of their "unhelpful" bickering is the least I can do - the sky is blue, and must be thus called blue. Believe me, I considered a lot of choice, colorful adjectives before settling on those tame ones.... My only advice to such individuals is to be patient and give opinions after they understand all the facts. Otherwise, they can do best by leaving it to the involved parties and ArbCom. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And I'm sorry Priyanath, but you should understand that "inflaming" any situation is done by outrageous accusations and deceitful misrepresentation of facts, not by the tones of individuals. If I have to use "tough love"-style language and tone to put the cackles at rest, I don't see anything wrong in that. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rama, please you mis-quote me - I said "appalling" not "attrocious", they are different words. I think you will find that it is customary to block indefinitely all new users who do the same thing that you have done - that is publishing personal information of others on Wikipedia without permission. I had myself had a user publish all my personal details on Wikipedia, he was banned just for doing that. You may also remember that the ArbCom has recently even banned mention of a website dedicated to publishing information about Wikipedians, and yet you strive to turn Wikipedia into that website's clone. As your very signature suggests, it looks like Wikipedia is just a game to you - you do not respect the privacy of other users and you do not care to discuss before blocking. While the rest of my statement on this talk page was pure exagerated sarcasm that I wish I had not used, I do indeed find your actions "appalling" and my personal opinion is that you need a good long ban - but that is for the workshop phase.--Konstable 06:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do suggest however, Rama, that you take a step back from this page. Judging from past experience with them, the ArbCom most likely will not read this talk page, and in any case arguing here will not help resolve anything. I myself won't be responding here any more. If you wish to dispute the evidence I had presented, please feel free to present counter-evidence.--Konstable 06:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I want your admin powers revoked, Rama. what you did was wrong.  you revealed private information that you had no right to reveal.  You blocked users with no explanation.  you had no case since the edits show otherwise.  you're abusing your power and persecuting those that don't agree with you.  Konstable is totally right in your actions.  you have caused the death of the republic, cicero.--D-Boy 09:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "The edits show otherwise". No, they don't. That's the point.
 * Oh, and Cicero didnt cause the death of the republic. Hornplease 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, they do. that's the point.  and yes he did.--D-Boy 16:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's more than enough evidence of disruption, and I defy you to add that line, properly cited, to Marcus Tullius Cicero. Hornplease 16:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you missed the point. He thought it was Cicerean section. ¬¬¬¬
 * There's no evidence for disruption. And I won't add anything.  ceasar was going to reform republic.  there was no way the repulic could go on without change.  It was growing too big.  Cicero was opposed to change and wanted to stop it at any cost.  He wanted to keep power in the hands of a few.  augustus and mark antony knew cicero would be a roadblock instistute reforms.  he may have been a great writer and orator but he was stubborn.  his stubborness to change caused the death of the republic.--D-Boy 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Sulla. Please note the word "dictator" in the article. That killed the republic long before Ceasar and Cicero had their squabbles.Haphar 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already read about Sulla.  Sulla was a stepping stone.  But he didn't kill it.  He tried reforming.  the senate didn't learn from the experience.--D-Boy 07:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The senate was the basis of the republic. One can also claim that Tiberius ,Caligula and Nero tried to "reform" the senators ( after all they had many killed, as did Sulla). Whatever the senates inadequacies, they ensured a "more" democratic and republican life than any dictator. The "reform" of Sulla ( and Ceasar ) was around how to get the Senate to do their biddings. Haphar 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But tiberus, caligula, and nero didn't cause the death of the republic. it was already dead.--D-Boy 18:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Rama's Arrow running a sting operation with the help of Dab and his tag team?
RA is aware of Dab's uncivil behaviour and he himself was the victim accoring to this[]. In Dab's talk page, RA promised him that he will help fight the so called 'ideologues'. After RA's sweeping blocks of 'ideologues', Dab thanks him on RA's talk page.[]. Looks like some kind of admin cabalism.

When I look at this RFA, it reminds me of the sculpture at Oxford in which three brahmins sitting at the feet of a white man. You can see this at Rajiv Malhotra's blog here. Make sure to scroll down. These characters can be mapped to Dab, RA, DiGizza and (?) on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.40.21.204 (talk • contribs). at 23:35, 20 May 2007

Reply to evidence presented by Aksi

 * Comments:... hah... is this all you've got? you are selectively laying out half-truths and misrepresentations for evidence. It is intellectually dishonest of you to accuse me of participating in reverting warring with Baka, D-Boy and others. If you look closely, 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. 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; 19:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments: I'm disappointed. This is Aksi's earth shattering evidence?!  This is weaker than pompey's loss of love from the people to ceasar.  Any wiki user here knows i'm involved with hinduisn and hindu-related article.  Hindutva propaganda was, how should I put this in WP:CIVIL terms...ah.. yes...it was not well.   it was put up for AFD, I chose delete.  I don't see how this breaks any policy of the project.  As far as I know,  established users are able to vote on an AFD.  I queztion your motives aski.  maybe it is you who is involved in a cabal.  RA, you, and dagizza, and maybe dab have it in for us?  may the heavens have mercy on you.  I wish you the best.--D-Boy 21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments in resp to Amey: Dont try to mislead . You didnt just remove the tags but also readded the section "Persecution of Muslims" which had happened much before the Goa inquisition. This was after Dboy and Baka had reverted my change once each. You have willingly reverted the same change that they had. nly difference was you hid it along with the removal of a tag. The reference you have provided clearly shows that you participated in the edit-war. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Vitriolic attack?? The diff you have show is ramas warning to me, not the supposed vitriolic attack itself. Vitriolic attack or not it does not reduce your role in the revert war. Anyway as I have told you and Rama: if my comments violate Wikipedias policies you can gladly put an ANI notice about me. And your offer of a fresh start was a late repentance, much after this Arbcom had started. It is nothing but a lame attempt to get away from having to own responsibility for your actions. Also it came with a grand condition: That you are willing to work on the Goa inquisition with anyone except me.

--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

response to D-Boy
In reply to this: Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence.
 * 1) "accussing me of vandalism"
 * 2) "He removed sourced material from the article.".
 * My reply: Valid reason was provided before removing "sourced material" :Talk:Goa_Inquisition
 * to which Dboy's response was a revert war(two reverts by Dboy himself, 1 by Amey one by Baka ) :Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence.
 * He preffered not to discuss, even after putting a message on his talk page :User_talk:Dangerous-Boy, requesting him to do so.

--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for the other but I thought you were vandal Xandar. the fact that you were uncivil in the matter did not help.  Seeing your statements with ambroodey, led me to believe you were just another vandal.--D-Boy 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange! Dboy claims that I have accused him of vandalism, but is unable to state where? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More time
Due to personal reasons, I need a few days more time. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So far Rama's Arrow and DaGizza have not provided any evidence to support the accusations that they made. As accused, we can only defend ourselves and provide counter-evidence if we see any evidence.  Till they provide evidence, what is the point in you providing any evidence.Sbhushan 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Even I was a bit surprised when I noticed the lack of evidence. I have mine ready, in any case. Just need to organise it a bit. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  06:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I apologize for my role in holding up the proceedings. I will 100% submit my evidence on Sunday, May 20th - no further delays, I promise. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will be publishing my case and evidence circa 14:00 hours today, May 21. For prospective, nitpicking abusers wanting to harp about the few hours delay, I have some choice words which I cannot basically say to you on Wikipedia. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence was added but was removed . It may take some time until the majority of it is re-added since I suspect it is sleeping time in the States. GizzaChat  &#169; 07:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree most strongly with the oversighting - there is no need. All of those e-mail conversations are vital to highlight at this stage of the case. Additionally, "privacy" has been respected as only relevant segments of conversations have been posted. I will restore the full version shortly. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Should I point out that Hkelkar and co. have relentlessly spammed other users about all this nonsense? Where is their sense of courtesy? I'm sorry but I have to insist on re-posting the specific lines of conversation that are most relevant and provide context. I already told you guys before I submitted my evidence that I would do it like this - why didn't you say anything then. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rama, please do not do that, please do not revert war with Arbitrators. You have been reproached about posting emails two times already, there is unanimous oppossal towards you doing so, no one is sticking up for you posting this evidence, a clerk and an Arbitrator have asked you not to do it. Can we at least wait for the ArbCom to collectively comment on whether this evidence should be put forward? I will request the clerks to contact them to comment on the matter. Or could you yourself please explain why there is not enough on-wiki evidence?--Konstable 22:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

my evidence statement
Sorry to disappoint some of you - I've requested Blnguyen to transfer the orginal text of my evidence statement so I can re-post it without the e-mail excerpts (the text I had prepared was on-wiki draft and I don't have any backups). The sooner he does so, the better. I have transferred all the e-mail evidence in my possession to the arbs (who got some 14-15 e-mails from me this Monday) - now I'll let them figure out the puzzle. A few points to clarify - there was no privacy violation whatsoever in posting relevant excerpts, especially as I was party to most of them. You can argue as much as you like, but that's the truth. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My views on the case
This case is spawning a lot of essays, so here is another one that will focus on the context of the conflict rather than the details of it. I am not sure of procedures for these cases, and the "evidence" page says that long, rambling essays are not encouraged there. However I do not want to remain silent, and the talk page appears to be the place to state opinion regarding the case.

I agree with the general interpretation of this situation as given by Arvind that:

"'The real issue is a more fundamental principle: 'Wikipedia is not a battleground. In this case - as in 'India vs Pakistan' case, as well as a whole bunch of other disputes not all of which have come before ArbCom - the real issue is with editors viewing the Wikipedia process as a war against a particular POV which they happen to disagree with, and proceeding to edit - and strategise - as if they were at war."

This may be one of the first organized and sustained efforts to use a global information service such as Wikipedia as part of a political propaganda effort by a highly-motivated political cadre. This case is worth studying from that perspective. I do not know if Wikipedia processes have been designed to deal with this sort of thing. My impression is that Wikipedia conflict resolution procedures mostly focus on the behavior of individual users. Procedures for handling groups of organized attackers may not be so clear.

The backdrop is that in Indian politics there is a right-wing movement (for an overview see: Hindutva) that relies on a complex of specific propaganda themes related to extreme nationalism and "Hindu-first" racial purity. These themes have been systematically worked into dozens of Wikipedia articles as a result of an organized sock and meat puppet program. Evidence of this organized propaganda campaign is the centerpiece of the material originally presented for the case, and further articulated here by Abecedare who presents some additional detail on the efforts to control socks of prolific banned users such as User:Maleabroad, whose edit histories give an overview of many of the common propaganda themes. The blocks have not stopped the edit wars that continue daily on many articles, conducted by various socks and single-purpose accounts all following similar propaganda themes.

The rise of the Hindu right and their very aggressive propaganda methods are drawing increasing attention by some Western political scientists, who tend to view them with alarm. These are not trivial conflicts, and they are not limited to cyberspace. The degree of hate that is being spread is not well-reported in the West. Incidents such as the 2002 Gujarat violence, in which Gujarat government statistics report that 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed, with 223 missing and 2548 injured, have involved such a degree of racial and cultural hatred that they have resulted in charges of genocide being conducted against the Muslim minority population, with counter-charges of the reverse.

A widely quoted (and possibly spurious) quotation attribed to Edmund Burke is that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (for variants see: ). The win/lose mentality promoted by the edits wars results in each side thinking that they are "good" and the other is "evil", which fundamentally violates the good faith principle of Wikipedia (see: Demonization). However, the actions that were taken to ban users were essentially defensive in nature, and were as far as I can see a good faith effort to respond to a serious and unusual attack.

It is entirely possible that some innocent bystanders were caught in the net, or that some of the block actions went farther than necessary to achieve minimum objectives. I do not know if that happened or not, as the details are complicated and I have not followed all of the specific exchanges and relationships that led up to the climactic action. However I am convinced that the motivation of the admins was honest, and that it was an act of personal bravery on their part to try to do something strong and effective to counter the sustained disruption that has made editing some articles almost impossible.

I hope that the Arbitrators will step back from the details and consider if there are any larger policy issues here that Wikipedia needs to consider as it is increasingly used as a propaganda tool and global political soapbox. Regardless of what happens with this case, I hope that some better response mechanisms can be developed on a systems and policy level to deal with the continued coordinated propaganda efforts involving multiple users.

Buddhipriya 07:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nehru said this... Nehru said that... and the same Nehru also invited the RSS to march alongside the armed forces on Republic Day! So whats your point?  How is it related to this arbcom that I suppose is dealing with alleged meatpuppetry?
 * And stop painting a picture as if, RSS is running elaborate computer labs in bunkers across the world and Baka, dboy, sbhushan et al are operating out of those bunkers. Your obfuscation of the matters here with issues totally unrelated to the case is as shameful as it is funny.
 * This case which was supposed to investigate allegations of meatpuppetry has descended into chaos with everyone cherry picking their opponents worst edits and presenting it as evidence. Now you want to take it to the next level of chaos and start off people on the arbcom with Indian Politics 101?
 * I grew up in India too and also have a deep understanding of these issues and and let me state that just for the record, your demonisation of the RSS and Narendra Modi et al., is a classic case of POV which has no place on Wikipedia and it appears to me as only a mischevous attempt at colouring the Arbcom admins' thinking. And oh, btw.. Martha who?  Edmund who?  Sarvagnya 21:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If anybody claims that Baka and co shouldnt be editing wikipedia because they hold extreme views, then, by that logic people with the other extreme POV like you shouldnt be editing Wikipedia either. Pejorative and gratuitous use of pseudo-intellectual terms like right wing and fascist and propaganda etc., is not going to make you right.  Sarvagnya 22:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Baka and co shouldn't be editing wikipedia because of their conduct, not because of their views. JFD 22:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And the only things that I've seen so far being used to judge their conduct is their views. Sarvagnya 22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This one is for you Buddhipriya.

Buddhipriya, you were involved in one mediation effort I tried with DBachmann over the Indeginous Aryan article. I am surprised you did not comment on the effort I made and the effort he made to resolve the issues. His gaming the wikipedia process was clear to you and you still kept quite about that. For one simple statement, do you recall how many references were proposed and none of them said what Dab wanted in the article. Every statment that I objected to has been removed from the article now. Regarding your essay about RSS, for record, I have same respect for all political parties that I have for all organized religions, which is zero. As discloser, I am a Hindu, but my interaction with organized religion is only at time of birth, marriage and death. My view is that politics and organized religions are responsible for the worst things in human history.Sbhushan 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record I would like to confirm that I was involved in a limited way when Sbhushan made what seemed to me to be a good faith effort to involve an outside mediator to deal with a dispute with another editor, and that effort did not go forward because when other parties did not choose to participate in the mediation the mediator declined to participate further, which was their right under the informal mediation procedures that were being suggested. The outcome of the mediation effort was not due to anything which Sbhushan did, and he seemed to me to be making a sincere effort to use existing processes for that conflict resolution.  The editors who declined to participate were also within their rights in choosing not to participate. Another editor (not Sbhushan) suggested that I consider acting as a neutral advocate for Sbhushan in that matter, and I declined that suggestion because I did not wish to become formally involved with the dispute, and the difference between being an advocate and being a mediator did not seem clear to all parties.  I personally do not recall ever having a problem with Sbhushan that we were unable to resolve through dialog. I declined the suggestion to be an advocate not because of any concern about working with him, but because of concern that the overall combative climate of the article in question made it unlikely that an advocacy effort would have any real impact there.  Sbhushan do you feel that this fairly states the case, or do you feel that further clarification is needed? By the way, I think that one possible good outcome that could come from this case would be if some editors who are genuinely interested in working through some of the content issues in a disciplined way wished to collaborate in a serious joint effort with some agreement on standards of sourcing, it could result in improvement of some of the articles that are battlegrounds now. Buddhipriya 03:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is those standards of sourcing which are key. JFD 03:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there were objections to some parts of my statement I have voluntarily edited it to remove the portions to which specific objections were raised. Buddhipriya 08:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya that is fair statement of facts and I agree with the expected good outcome also. Hopefully, more people get involved and try to make this a better encyclopedia. For record, I never requested an advocate. JFD, I don't know what experience you had, but no one has found any "standards of sourcing" error in the content I have provided. In last six months, Dab has never been able to challenge a single content I have provided. On other hand Dab has not provided a single content in six months that has been found acceptable to Wikipedia standards. How many diffs would you like me to present of his misrepresenting academic publications? Actions speak louder than words.Sbhushan 13:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So in support of Indo-Aryan migration you have Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, and J. P. Mallory, Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at Queen's University Belfast and General Editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies.


 * In support of the Out of India theory you have David Frawley, head of the American Institute of Vedic Studies, and Nicholas Kazanas of the Omilos Meleton Cultural Institute.


 * This is exactly what I mean when I talk about "standards of sourcing".
 * JFD 14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to say here, but I removed David Frawley from Out of India page. Kazanas publication in Journal of Indo-European Studies is used for Out of India page, in addition to others. Content I added to Indo-Aryan migration is based on mainstream linguistic scholars. Lots of Dab's errors/misrepresentations, I corrected in that article were based on the material Dab cited. He has a habit of not reading/understanding material that he cites. If you have a question about specific contribution I made, let us discuss. I am not married to any particlur postion/author. If you are here for just fun, then I will not respond to any further notes from you. Take a look at my contribution before throwing baseless accusations. Baseless accusation get us where Rama's Arrow's got us in this RfArb.Sbhushan 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sbhushan,
 * In this diff, you attribute to Michael Witzel the following quotation
 * citing a "Published volume (1995) of the papers presented during a conference on Archaeological and Linguistic Approaches to Ethnicity in Ancient South Asia, held in Toronto on 4th-6th October 1991".


 * There is insufficient information in this citation to verify your quote.


 * But thanks to Google, I was able to find the exact words of your citation ("published volume (1995) of the papers presented during a conference on Archaeological and Linguistic Approaches to Ethnicity in Ancient South Asia, held in Toronto on 4th-6th October 1991") at voiceofdharma.com.


 * Also, by the looks of it your quotation is not a single passage as you present it, but is in fact cobbled together from bits of 3 separate paragraphs at voiceofdharma.com.


 * You may reply at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence or Talk:Out of India theory.


 * JFD 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Michael Witzel, Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and politics, in: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy, Berlin/New York (de Gruyter) 1995. []. The Hydronomy section starts at page 133. The 3 quotes are from page 133&mdash;134, 135 and 139. I have addressed your question, so please insert the text back in the article. Surprisingly, you did not question the quote from Krahe which is dated and incorrect, and is in conflict with Witzel (1995) and Theo Vennemann (1994). How about you remove that now? Right now I am busy with the arbitration. Your comments have nothing to do with this arbitration and are not constructive. So I will not address them anymore.Sbhushan 23:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusations against third parties
After Rama has requested to be desysoped I have left him a note basically saying that I am leaving this case as I no longer have outstanding issues. Yet he has attempted to drag me back into here with libelous accusations that I am part of some Indian cabal. Well I am a Russian-born Kiwi who has never actively edited, not even commented on, a single India-related article on Wikipedia, so it would be a bit hard. I also have been here for 2 years and have quite a bit of edits. Could someone keep a watch on this nonsense please. If someone decides that they do have some "evidence" or whatever against me, I would be willing to address that. But as no such thing has been presented and as I am not actually a party to this case I urge the Arbitrators or the clerks to step in to keep this in line.--Konstable 07:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I offended you, but the personal-ness, vigor and baselessness of your prosecution of my own conduct certainly made me think that you were as good as an involved party. I don't throw around wanton speculation and accusations - whatever evidence/suspicions I have regarding you have been transferred to the arbitrators - now its up to them. I don't see you as an involved party, but if I have a few reasons, right or wrong, to suspect the nature of your conduct, I will express them appropriately. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  15:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in no cabal. If you look at my contributions, you'll see that I'm not active in editing India-related articles at all, and I mostly focus on baseball and politics. Clearly, if I have no prior involvement in any of the articles discussed throughout this case like Hindutva propaganda, then how are my actions cabalist or anything? When Baksuprman's block was at AN/I, I protested that I did not see any conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing on Baka's part, and I found it grossly offensive to block editors in good standing without discussing with any other users. You've had quite a bit of involvement with Baka in the past, and you don't have a particular fondness for the stuff he does here. Given that, I felt you had a predisposition to be one-sided on whatever action imposed on Bakasuprman, which is why I voiced my opinion. Am I wrong for speaking my mind? Also, you said, "The committee did not find anything wrong with my action in Wikipedia: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." This is offensive. Your whole tone as treating me as a criminal, when I have no prior involvement in the Indo-Pak ArbCom case or with any of the blocked users, is just absolutely demeaning. You're treating me like a criminal, when I am just trying to speak out against what I believe is wrong. That's all. I'm not in some mischievous cabal, and I have not partaken in any wrongdoing. Nishkid64 (talk)  21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since its a maze out there, I wont bother fishing for the diffs. But RA said something on the lines of "...Sarvagnya.. he's not even party to this case, but..".  While he is eager to handwave me simply because I am not an involved party, he seems to have no qualms presenting as 'evidence' the approval(via email that too) of several users(Rudra, fowler, buddhipriya, et al) as support for his unilateral, ill thought and draconian block on multiple senior editors of good standing.  He leaves it unsaid that an equal(if not more) number of editors had already started questioning his blocks on ANI.  This includes the likes of myself, Users KNM, Dinesh, Gnanapiti and several others.


 * He claims that he got 'evidence' about Nick very late in the day and that was the reason he didnt mail me any of the evidence! On ANI, I wasnt even asking for evidence against Nick(why would I, Nick hadnt even been targeted yet).  I was only asking for evidence against the blocked users.


 * And the only reason, I was demanding evidence was because, like Nishkid, I honestly felt(and still feel) that the blocks were ill conceived and badly executed. And in the trashy bit of 'evidence' that Gizza had mailed me, I had found nothing at all that could even remotely, justify the blocks.  And for speaking my mind, I become a villain in RA's eyes.  Sarvagnya 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly Nishkid64 and Sarvagnya - I don't give a damn about y'all. You have completely ignored the evidence, completely disrespected my judgment and issued bogus criticism - do you think I feel the slightest regard for y'all after that? I have already given my evidence and what I have to say - you can like it or.... Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  22:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sarvagnya, you have a right in what you believe in. But I hope you realise your name is still here . As long as you are aware, that was all I hoping to do when I sent you part of my evidence. GizzaChat  &#169; 23:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * RA, I reviewed the evidence on this page a number of times. I received the original emails in question back when this whole thing started out as an AN/I posting. I had an opinion then, and even now, my opinion has not changed. More people have been accused of wrongdoing, and I acknowledge that, but my perception of the main focus of ArbCom case has not been altered. Don't think that because I don't support your view doesn't mean I didn't thorough look through the evidence. Just because I don't side with you doesn't mean I think you have bad judgment. You've done what I perceive to be the correct thing in many instances, but I feel this particular situation, you did not handle it to my liking. Frankly, I would wish for you to stop being so hostile towards me, and other users who are not in agreement with you in this case. I think you're letting your emotions get the best of you, Nirav. Nishkid64 (talk)  00:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I presented my case/evidence about 24 hours ago. You concluded your opinions long before that. Should I add that at the ANI discussion, you claimed there was no basis to do this but (1) never contacted me to see the evidence and (2) claimed you had seen the evidence when in fact you had not. Too bad, I have no choice but to assume bad faith with your participation in this debate. Cheers, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Now let me point out this.  On ANI, you said DaGizza had seen the evidence and approved of the blocks.  But DaGizza told me that he had not seen all of the evidence and on top of that, what he mailed to me as 'evidence'(I suppose) had no substance in it.  So should I say that you lied?  Do you want me to forward his mail to you?  Sorry.  I checked again and just realised that I had already forwarded that mail to you.  Sarvagnya 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicted) RA, stop saying I hadn't seen the evidence. I was sent an email by someone involved in the case (don't want to mention names) and I looked it over, and could not find a real reason to block Bakasuprman. I even saw your latest evidence posted yesterday (ask NYB, if you want to...we were talking about your evidence). Nishkid64 (talk)  00:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have already accused me of being a liar and a forger, so what should I expect from your whining now? DaGizza did not see "all of the evidence" - pls refer to the fact that there are 15 distinct e-mails that compose the off-Wiki evidence, which has been privately communicated to the arbs. I showed only the particularly damning evidence to those who asked for it. After ArbCom accepted this case, I began a process of digging up all these different mails, conversations and transcripts to present privately as evidence. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No Nishkid - you did not see the evidence up till now. And not in its entirety anyway - only the arbs have seen it all. The reason for blocking Bakasuprman is clear - his emails PLUS his meatpuppetry, tag-team edit-warring on RSS, Godhra Train Burning, etc. Now if you still claim to have seen the evidence but saw no reason to block Baka, I dunno what to tell you save "The Sky Is Blue and 2 PLUS 2 MAKE 4" Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  01:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * RA, if you have more evidence, then surely post it here, or email me it and I'll gladly see if it will change my opinion of everything. Remember that I am entitled to an opinion, but if I am not provided with everything needed to make a proper decision, then it's easy for me to have trouble seeing eye-to-eye with you. Nishkid64 (talk)  01:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Clerks needed
Rama is presenting his bullshit allegations against uninvolved parties without evidence on the evidence page. I will keep reverting.--Konstable 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, your whole evidence is puked-up shit. Do you find me revert-warring with you? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Konstable, please leave the evidence as it is presented unless otherwise advised, regardless of your view of its merits. The arbitrators know perfectly well how to disregard allegations that are not supported by evidence. Rama's Arrow, please consider whether all of your allegations are supported by evidence and remove any that are unsupported or not likely to be helpful, and also refrain from comments like this one. Newyorkbrad 23:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad, you know very well how even the most ridiculous nonsense presented in the worst of faith can follow someone around for months on end. You know very well that I have been victim of such smear campaigns in the past, and you know very well that though the ArbCom ended up ignoring most of the nonsense, I have been wikistalked and blocked over it later on. You call this evidence? How can people defend against evidence they cannot see? Will this be another thing over me now? First I was a vandal, now I'm an Indian cabalist?--Konstable 23:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will remove the passage if he removes his "evidence," which is lies and bullshit. Makes sense? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, so this is what it's all about, thank's for letting me know. Oh well, I have survived far worse bullshit than yours. So I'll let you have fun with your evidence, I'm out of this case just as I intended, you won't be able keep me in no matter how hard you try. You can continue write however many more essays you want on me - my evidence stays, but I do not. These pages are off my watchlist.--Konstable 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To Konstable: frankly, although I have been clerking this case since it started, I cannot make head or tail out of many of the allegations - partly because some of the evidence has been oversighted or moved off-wiki. I am just trying to keep some basic order on these pages until the matter is resolved.

To Rama's Arrow: Please calm down, and see comment on my talk. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad he's gone - he shouldn't have been around here anyway, let alone edit-warring on the evidence page and launching personal attacks on me. This is none of his business and he can go mope elsewhere. And yes, I apologize for my incivility - I really do regret my behavior. I already tried to straighten out the problems with Konstable, but he reverted my message for a frank discussion. Then he tries to edit-war - hell no, how can I let that pass? Konstable has done nothing but give me cause for aggravation. I'm disappointed with myself, and I'll do my best to never repeat this behavior. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  23:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, enough bickering
I am through with all this bickering - this does nobody any good. I promise not to feed any controversial comments, engage in any incivility, rude repartee or bandying words, etc. If anybody has any sincere questions or "constructive" comments to make, I will welcome them. Any fresh accusations should take a hike - I've heard 'em all. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I would approve of anything that can lead to potential progress in this case. By the way, as I mentioned above, if there's more evidence, I need to be aware of it. Nishkid64 (talk)  01:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that's a lie. RA basically threatened baka at the end of his evidence section reply.--D-Boy 06:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What can rama expect? I am a punk with no integrity. Baka man  01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)