Wikipedia : Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop

I agree. Apart from the fact that Nick and Sbhushan have called it doctored, I also have very strong suspicions that the email evidence is doctored. The day before RA posted the emails on wiki, DaGizza mailed me only a part of the 'evidence'. This portion had nothing in it that could implicate any of the accused of any wrongdoing. All that this mail contained was a reference to me where I had been spoken of in less than flattering terms. Clearly, they were only trying to sway my opinion as I had by then already started questioning the wisdom of the high handed blocks RA had handed out. They probably were trying to 'work me' behind the scenes. I asked DaGizza for the entire evidence, but he said he had not seen it and that I should ask RA for the evidence. RA however, was making a case for himself on ANI by claiming that other users including Gizza had seen the evidence and approved of his blocks! There is too much doublespeak and probably downright lying going on here for anyone to trust the credibility of this evidence. And to add to it, there has been an inexplicable delay in RA presenting his evidence. Sarvagnya 23:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is forcing RA to leave real life activities and present evidence urgently for this case. Argument is before block is enforced on user, On-wiki evidence should have been collected. It should be the basis for enforcing block. If that was done there is no need for asking time now.(Unless real life commitment is preventing him from focussing completely on wikipedia activities.) Asking more time now gives the impression that evidence is being collected now by matching edit patterns for block which was enforced few weeks back. --Indianstar 02:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Arb request should be split in 2 seperate request

3.1) first request to deal with cabal issue and meatpuppetry charges

3.2) second request to deal with

Dbachmann

issues — admin abuse, disruptive behavior, indefensible incivility, page-owning, prejudice, and creating a battleground on wikipedia

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed — It is getting too confusing; no one knows what evidence relates to what. The way Rama's Arrow is going on with accusations, soon every one is going to be in this "cabal". Some people have suggested that this RfArb should not have been started; but now we have gone beyond the point of no return. Too much bad blood here now — if Rama's Arrow's charges are turned down, he will resent it and leave wikipedia for sure. If he is not held responsible for his fictitious charges and this mess, then people he accused will feel the system is geared to protect admin. And will have no choice, but to leave wikipedia. So only viable solution is either we are banned for life or he/DaGizza are. Regarding Dab issue, it is not content dispute, but user behavior issue. The evidence is presented, but it is only tip of the iceberg. Dab is creating and escallating this conflict/battleground. I have tried everything; mediation doesn't work because he won't participate in them. I came to ArbCom as last resort. This dispute has to be resolved.Sbhushan 01:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--D-Boy 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed decision process should be temporarily stalled

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In the light of evidence produced by myself, which was probably not considered. Also, an email was forwarded to morven and NYB, which stands to be considered by the Arbitration Committee to avoid a severe miscarriage of justice. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Arbcom desires to make an intelligent judgment; this is a good step to facilitate the creation of said judgment.Baka man 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is obvious that all sides want the final decision to swing their way (some with justification, some without), it is equally obvious that most involved parties are dissatisfied with the way ArbCom has been handling this case. The Arbs must answer the central question - were the blocks justified or not - and for that, y'all need to take a few steps back and study the particulars. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm justified in expressing my anger that those who facilitate hkelkar's trolling on wikipedia, and whitewash records of it are allowed to misuse their admin powers.Baka man 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us study the particulars. As per Rama’s Arrow’s comments here [1] and [2], I am no longer a meatpuppet for Hkelkar; now I am only disruptive. Just for argument sake was there any warning given to me for disruptive behavior; any progressive blocks before indef block. A single block by Dab was an abuse of sysops privileges in content dispute [3]. As
User:Dbachmann
, you don’t know Dab. I am avoiding all controversial issues/articles to avoid conflict with Dab and his tag-team. Also RA’s statement about 3-4 arbcom is incorrect as this is the first Arbcom where I am an involved party. So on-wiki evidence doesn’t support any of RA’s accusations.

The kind of on-wiki evidence presented against Bakaman and D-Boy, is also available against Rama’s Arrow [4]. This is a diff of Rama’s Arrow defending Hkelkar sock [5]. Based on evidence provided so far, it seems that DaGizza has something against D-Boy and Rama’s Arrow has something against Bakaman and Sir Nick. This is why we are going through this mud-slinging mess. As User:Bhadani said if you torture the data long enough, it will accept any thing.Sbhushan 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Request to remove Aksi_great (talk) from the list of involved parties

5)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. As my only involvement with this incident was the endorsal of Rama's Arrow's actions at ANI. I have never blocked any of the involved parties in this case. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And neither have I. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - for aski. the man has agenda which is obvious with all that evidence he compiled.--D-Boy 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Aksi served a role in promoting Hkelkar paranoia and facilitated and condoned admin abuse by Rama's Arrow.Baka man 01:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by Hkelkar paranoia. If you mean catching and blocking Hkelkar socks while you defended them, then yes, I did contribute to it. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair I'll give you that. However our crusader for neutrality and truth did much worse (knowingly) with hkelkar including blocking users hkelkar was in conflict with. At least you didnt need to expect better conduct from me, I can still rest on the fact that I never was made privy to his socks, and therefore do not need to answer to your spurious allegations and your facilitation of this

anti-Hindu witch-hunt.Baka man 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

Request to exempt Aksi_great (talk) from proposed remedy 3.3.4

6)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. If not 5, then this. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are "no sanctions" against involved parties. The ArbCom is simply reminding the administrators not to block users when they're involved with them, those pertaining to the case, i.e. As a note, evidence shows that it was only RA and Dbachmann who blocked users while being in dispute with them over articles. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. If it was a simple reminder, I would have supported the remedy (but then it would be in proposed principles, no?). But this remedy specifically bars all involved admins from taking any action against other parties whatever may be the cause ("under no circumstances"). - Aksi_great (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is self-contradictory. Note: – [6]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean the AC or me? (re:self-contradictory) - Aksi_great (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed remedy, of course. "No sanctions" and then explicitly sanctioning users involved in this case is harsh on those users who have not blocked any of the involved parties relevant to the dispute. The ArbCom can only sanction when a pattern of disruptiveness is established. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 05:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have a comment on this, but wasn't sure where best to post it, ending up on the Proposed decision talkpage. Here, feel free to click! Bishonen | talk 12:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Request for block log to be cleared

7) The block log of

User:Scheibenzahl and User:Anupamsr

should be cleared.

Proposed. I am not sure if this is something that can be asked, but if it can be, I would like to opt-in. I am pretty sure there is no evidence against me.

Request for ban to be lifted

8) User:Anupamsr's ban should be lifted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It is a valid account, which right now lists itself as a sockpuppet of

User:Scheibenzahl

, which is hindering my "let us be anonymous" movement :(

Comment by others:

Blnguyen

9) Arbitrator Blnguyen is recused from this case with immediate effect - [7], [8], [9]

10) Arbitrator Blnguyen's proposals, comments and votes are to be striken with immediate effect.

11) Arbitrator Blngyuen is reprimanded for non-disclosure of his involvement in the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

After you guys decided to send around everyon'e emails after the case opened, everyone else decided to retaliate. Apart from that I was not informed of anything before this case started. My judgments are derived wholly from seeing what Gizza has been advocating on wiki, and what he has actually done on-wiki himself. As for Gizza's complaints, RA admitted in his email conversations that he himself forwarded to arbcom, was that Gizza was involved with those he assails with such righteousness. I also note Gizza was a part of the onwiki group FundyWatch and tried to have it kept. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed - recent developments show that

WP:ANI for around 48 hours! He should have done nothing out of respect for (1) ANI consensus and (2) the fact that involved parties in this ArbCom case were the subjects. He should not have un-blocked even if he felt against it, because he is supposed to be a neutral arbitrator - he is not, because he is openly taking sides and interfering directly. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

You told us yourself, in your own email, that Gizza, who you want thanked for services to NPOV was involved. I was not aware prior to the arbcom case. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add, a good example has been set by clerk Srikeit, who recused himself from the very beginning even though he wasn't named in the case. What Blnguyen has done is inexcusable. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Blnguyen the more you admit and explain what you know, the stronger the case gets to have you recused for abuse of your position. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, all this junk was forwarded to me after the case started, to the whole arbcom. As for the Fundy Watch thing, it was and MfD that everyone saw. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I ditto Nirav's concerns. His personal experiences with the involved parties can be seen in his lengthy, emotional proposals on the Proposed Decision page. Gizza^Chat ^© 13:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note, that both you and Nirav did not raise the same concerns during the India-Pakistan debate. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RA noted himself in his emails that you were involved with those you assail. And you also thought you had me in your back pocket as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Rama's Arrow and DaGizza have proven themselves to be cheats and admins sans integrity. Blnguyen has blocked both myself and anwar before and therefore provides a knowledgeable and neutral voice here. Baka man 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—The diffs cited above have nothing to do with charge of "Hkelkar" meatpuppet against any of us. Rama's Arrows keeps forgetting that he charged us with "explicit meatpuppetry" and he specifically said this RfArb was not about POV-pushing and other disruptive behavior. I don't know if the blocks on Baka/Anwar was justified or not, but this has nothing to do with this RfArb. I also request ArbCom to bring a speedy closure to the ridicules joke that this RfArb has become. Soon only Rama's Arrow and DaGizza will be left as defender of Wikipedia and everyone else is doing their best to destroy this project (in RA/DaGizza's minds). This conspiracy theory has gone far enough.Sbhushan 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - RA's getting desyopped anyway by Wikia so it doesn't matter. For the glory of Rome! --D-Boy 18:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Can it get more amateur than this? Why should Blnguyen be punished for enforcing a basic Wikipedia policy? These charges are malicious and in bad faith and I request the bureaucrats here to take suitable action immediately on Rama's Arrow. Anwar 18:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Knowledge of a case is not the same as being a participant in it. Rama's arrow knew of Blnguyen's knowledge of this case from when this case started a month ago. It is only when he recommends that he be desysopped that the question of recusal comes up. This is clearly only a desperate attempt by Rama's arrow to remove an arbitrator who is disagreeing with his opinion from this case -- Samir 03:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - only when Blnguyen intefered directly by un-blocking Bakasuprman and launching attacks on DaGizza did I complain. If I was doing this because he "opposed" me, I would have done this last week, wouldn't I? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I involved when I did not do anything before this case started? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that an Arb uninvolved in a case can have knowledge of it. I wholeheartedly support Blnguyen's unblocks and view them as irrelevant to the crux of the case, which is your revelation of personal information on-wiki -- Samir 03:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: All editors are again urgently requested, in the strongest possible terms, to avoid unnecessary invective and personal attacks. Newyorkbrad 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for modification of remedy 12) In light of recent events, I request that the Arbitrators address the unblocking of like-minded parties.

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

As currently written, this proposed remedy addresses only admins blocking parties with whom they are in conflict; the recent unblocking of one party to this case by another violates the spirit of the same principle. I therefore ask the Arbitrators to address this.

I understand if the Arbitrators just want to close this case and be done with it. However, I hope they consider the implications of failing to close this loophole. What it means is that, in future, whenever some axe-grinder in a conflict gets blocked, all he has to do is appeal to a like-minded admin who shares the same national, religious, or ideological affinity to unblock him. Turning a blind eye to this loophole would allow an avenue by which Wikipedia could be turned into a
battleground to go—if you'll forgive the choice of words—unblocked. Ugly and disruptive edit-warring would escalate into uglier and even more disruptive wheel-warring
.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:
Proposed: JFD 02:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed temporary injunctions

Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy and Sbhushan are restricted

1) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sbhushan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are restricted to editing arbitration-related pages for the duration of the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Given the nature of the charges, I don't really see a need for such measures at this point. Such restrictions are typically imposed when parties are continuing to engage in flagrantly disruptive behavior outside the arbitration pages; has anyone suggested that this would be the case here? Or that there's some other danger in letting them edit for the time being? Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

My position is that I blocked them for their meatpuppetry/collusion with Kelkar. I was within my rights as an administrator to do so. This case has come to ArbCom because a few criticized the basis for my actions. As a result, these users were unblocked to make statements, participate in proceedings - note that at the ANI discussion, this exception was not made necessary (although a brief dispute arose over Bakasuprman's need to make a statement at ANI). While ArbCom decides whether or not these blocks are to be upheld, my opinion is that these users are obligated to respect the sanctions of the blocks as a courtesy to the policies to be upheld and those who felt the blocks were justified. This is different from a case entirely focused on user behavior, where the "innocent 'till proven" principle comes in. If I had not filed an ArbCom based on the reaction of a few at the ANI discussion, these editors would still be blocked as per the wishes of the majority of those who express opinions at ANI. To be sure - several administrators who endorsed the blocks had seen the evidence that is the basis of my actions. Thus these editors are obligated to show some courtesy to the community. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A dispute has arisen on my talkpage concerning whether Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be permitted to edit while this case is pending. Administrator Rama's Arrow initially blocked these two editors for alleged meatpuppetry on behalf of banned user Hkelkar. Partly at the instance of an arbitrator, the users were unblocked at the time this case was filed. Rama's Arrow's position is that the unblock should be limited to allowing them to edit only pages relating to the arbitration. This was indicated in the unblock summary in their block logs, but I do not believe this was explicitly stated to the users at the time they were unblocked. Dangerous-Boy and Bakasuprman have interpreted that they are unblocked for all purposes and have been editing unrelated articles, which Rama's Arrow believes is not appropriate. Under the circumstances I believe it would be helpful to have the views of arbitrators on this issue. If the arbitrators would prefer not to intervene, then views of one or more previously uninvolved administrators are requested. Please note that I am not taking a position on whether or not restrictions should be imposed. Newyorkbrad 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not studied the case to see whether this ban is warranted. Rama's Arrow believes these users were conditionally unblocked, however no such conditions were described on their user talk pages, and I'm not sure that, as the filer of the case, he is the appropriate person to impose such conditions anyway. RA apparently unblocked at Kirill's request, but Kirill also did not specify "to only participate in Arbitration."

Thatcher131 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Oppose the restriction for 2 reasons: 1) parties have asked to delay the proceedings; 2) Priyanath's section on the evidence page suggests that the accusation isn't suitable. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Kirill above, given that the individuals in question were blocked by an admin in good standing for disruption and meatpuppetry, I would suppose that there is indeed flagrantly disruptive behaviour to be feared. Hornplease 22:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to hornplease, the admin in question broke the rules for due process in the block. Admins are supposed to hold up and enforce wiki standards and policy. Not break them. This was flagrant abuse that harmed the credibilty and good names of long established users.--D-Boy 02:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we are here to determine. My response was merely to Kirill pointing out that this is different from the run-of-the-mill arbitration, and the status quo is that the three editors are blocked. Hornplease 00:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three editors were unblocked more than a week ago, so I think has been resolved, unless they have been seriously disruptive since then, which I haven't seen alleged. Newyorkbrad 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of them is on wikibreak at the moment. Exam season, as everyone has mentioned a few dozen times. Hornplease 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block was enforced based on evidence which is not acceptable as per wikipedia guidelines. There is no proof for disruptive editing. What is the need for restricting their editing activities.--Indianstar 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

E-mails should not be posted on-wiki

1) In the absence of permission from the sender and all addressees, contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed --D-Boy 06:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not provide my consent to any email evidence being presented on-wiki. Rama's Arrow has committed to provide evidence by May 20th. He is requested to provide only on-wiki evidence till a clear guidance is available from ArbCom. He can not claim later on that he was "forced" to provide email evidence.Sbhushan 16:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed -- Samir 09:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, should probably read "the sender and all addressees." Newyorkbrad 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited -- Samir 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Selective quoting from private correspondence is not prohibited on-wiki. There are many cases where quotes from IRC and mails have been posted on-wiki without consent. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't IRC. My email address should not be posted on wiki. Otherwise, I would have contact me on wiki email on my userpage. How can you quote when there is no accountablity? the quote could be falsified by the plaintiff and the evidence and the juries verdict contaminated.--D-Boy 06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not a court of law. There a re no plaintiffs and no juries. The ArbCom is not bound by US laws on what evidence should be permitted and what not. If you care to look carefully at what I have said then you will understand that I do not endorse the publishing of email addresses. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the email addresses are not published, then no the quotes cannot be accounted for. this creates a questionable transparency. Whether or not this is a court of law or subject to US laws is not question. Wiki is the people's encylcopedia. There must be transparency.--D-Boy 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The email addresses can be revealed in-camera if necessary. This is all beside the point. Hornplease 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. They can't. Like others have said. this isn't a court. There is no national security involved. Arbcom is a transparent process. How would you like it if someone releaed your personal emails for malicious reasons and then someone else started spamming them.--D-Boy 19:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IRC does state whether logging is prohibited or not, however. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this principle. Privacy is important, and privacy violations are to be taken seriously. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mails as evidence

3)

E-mails

are a serious and legitimate form of communication and correspondence. It is used extensively for Wikipedia business. They are also used for authentification of user accounts and identities.

4) E-mails serving as evidence of disruptive activities must be examined seriously by administrators and the arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emails mean business, unless they have been doctored or maliciously fabricated. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive activities can only be on-wiki. If there is NO on-wiki evidence, email evidence is point less. Also, email evidence can be easily doctored.Sbhushan 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Admissibility of emails as evidence

4) Emails are not acceptable as evidence by the Arbitration Committee unless under special circumtances, i.e. when they pertain to harassment or have real-life ramifications, and are corroborated by on-wiki evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Emails can be doctored and maliciously concocted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email evidence should only be used as secondary evidence to support on-wiki evidence. On-wiki evidence of disruptive/sock/meat behaviour has to be shown first.Sbhushan 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree - per my comments on the evidence page regarding [chain of custody], privacy, and the potential to cause editors to start mistrusting administrators and each other. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki evidence

4a) Off-wiki evidence may, in some circumstances, be appropriate as corroboration of evidence gathered on Wikipedia of problems with user conduct, but should not be used in isolation. Where the presentation of such evidence would violate users' privacy, it should be submitted direct to arbitrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Variant on the above, which may be clearer. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can be misused. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppets

5) It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles in order to attract users with known views in an attempt to strengthen one side of a debate. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is an existing policy; the problem is how to relate the evidence JFD presented to specific wikipedia users. Also, actions on wikipedia where sepecific users (e.g. DBachman, Rudrasharman on Aryan migration related pages) are working as tag team has to be addressed. Somehow these users are communicating to work as a team.Sbhushan 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed: JFD 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppets (2)

5a) The word meatpuppet is a term of art defined in

WP:CIVIL

. The term is a neologism and may be offensive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree — The meat puppet accusations can not be used for established user.Sbhushan 00:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Guy has a clear definition of meatpuppetry that is consistent with policy.Baka man 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. That was clearly the case here. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Terence 10:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitation and canvassing

5b) Solicitation and canvassing of previously uninvolved editors of a known point of view is regarded as problematic, irrespective of whether it occurs on or off Wikipedia (see

WP:CANVASS). Solicitation of new users to join simply to participate in support of a certain point of view is unacceptable (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich#Meatpuppetry

).

Agree. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Terence 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

6) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again existing policy. The problem is how to prevent this. When there is conflict, how do you resolve it. Existing dispute resolution process is not working, as DBachmann has figured out how to game it. He won't participate in mediation effort; arbcom didn't accept case against him. Forget about RfC, a lot of editors are willing to support his uncivil and disruptive behaviors, and his efforts to use wikipedia as platform to publish his POV. As example DBachmann created number of articles to push his POV (e.g [Indigenous Aryans], [Hindutva propaganda]) that increase conflict. This kind of behavior creates this battleground and has to be addressed. I have provided lots of evidence; I am waiting to see how this will be addressed.Sbhushan 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann threatened edit warring when consensus was against his views. [10].Sbhushan 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposition. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed: JFD 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a battleground, unfortunately, as

Dbachmann shows. How about 'Wikipedia should not be a battleground'? ॐ Priyanath talk 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

. There are cliques, tonnes of them.

There is no cabal

7)

There is no cabal

Proposed. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree—On humorous note, due to explosive growth in “cabal” membership, can we design some kind of secret handshake? I also suggest few motions 1) Vote of thanks to Rama’s Arrow for increasing the membership beyond imagination. I recommend him for “cabal” President since he has the secret membership list. 2) I was going to suggest DaGizza for head of investigations, but his skills are just not good enough. 3) In next "cabal" meeting, can we please discuss World domination? With our track record, we can surely do better than SPECTRE.Sbhushan 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior art.--129.69.36.89 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Repeat after me: There is no terrorist threat. There is no terrorist threat. - Michael Moore. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The Cabal hereby confirms that it does not exist. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polarising issues

8) Some topics, especially those which are politically charged, tend to polarise opinion. Edit-warring is commoon in such cases, and is generally bilateral, with numbers of users involved on both sides. A satisfactory and neutral resolution usually relies on good faith input from both sides. In such cases protection of certain articles, mediation and other dispute resolution processes should be preferred to blocking numbers of editors supporting one side or the other. Allegations of conspiracy probably will not help to resolve the underlying conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree — current wiki-process of dispute resolution are not working. This action by RA has made the situation worse.Sbhushan 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Guy. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Terence 10:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users

9) Banned users are not welcome on Wikipedia during the period of their ban. They are not permitted to attempt to influence content, except in very limited cases (e.g.

living individuals

where factual correction may be necessary). Users who are banned for disruption are not permitted to attempt to influence contributions of Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia editors who are made aware that a user has been banned should not act as proxies for the banned user. Editors who knowingly act as proxies for banned users may be blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. — On-wiki evidence should be presented to show that editors acted as proxy. In current RfArb, a user sent request to lots of editors that was ignored by editors. They can not be blamed for the user sending the request. I was not even aware that the user was Hkelkar.Sbhushan 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Propose. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. ॐ Priyanath talk 01:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Terence 10:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag team revert warring is NOT
meatpuppetry

Several diffs presented as evidence by RA, Aksi and others accusing the blocked parties of meatpuppetry, pertain only to what appears as or what can at best be branded as 'tag-team revert warring'. Since an attempt is being made to pass them off as evidence of meatpuppetry, I propose that the distinction between the two be recognised.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reply to Sarvagnya although ludicrous for many reasons, one key aspect is that Baka and D-Boy were tag-teaming with Hkelkar's IP and account sockpuppets. This cannot be accepted as non-meatpuppetry. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Really? I believe Ambroodey fed you info on hkelkar's sockpuppetry myself and dboy were not privy to. Hkelkar never bothered to tell me which user he was on wiki. I'm starting to believe your new nickname is "Baka and Dboy" since you are guilty of what you falsely accuse us of doing.Baka man 16:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow is again showing his complete apathy towards Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree— I was not in any 'tag-team revert warring' with any Hkelkar sock, but I still got accused of meatpuppetry. 'Tag-team revert warring' which happens at lots of contorversial article and by lots of editors needs to be addressed, but as Sarvagnya said in his statement here [11] it should be a seperate request.Sbhushan 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DisagreeTeam tagging through emails is meatpuppotry ,meant to evade 3RR asking a another Team member to revert as you have already done your turn is .Please we can have team work to do projects not to revert war and push POV.Adyarboy 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed - Sarvagnya 01:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - 'tag-team' revert warring happens every day. It should be addressed, but there is no policy to address it. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for guidance

1) The

administrator

seeking advice on the proper enforcement of its decisions.

2) If the committee wishes time to consider the issue brought to its attention, it should immediately notify the administrator to abstain from taking action until the committee reaches a decision.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed this is very important for the future. Without doubt, this is also to make sure that the arbitrators understand that I requested their guidance on this very issue, but received none - not even a courtesy message telling me to hold on. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Administrators

15)

Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this–administrators are not expected to be perfect–but consistently poor judgement may result in reapplication for adminship via the requests for adminship procedure or suspension or revocation of adminship. If revoked, the user may have a temporary or permanent limitation placed on reapplying.
Administrators have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block users, to protect pages, to edit protected pages, and to delete and restore pages. All of these abilities must be used in accordance with policy (the blocking, page protection, and deletion policies, respectively), and must never be used to "win" a content dispute.
One aspect of the responsibilities of an administrator is to attempt to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia site and its users. Administrators are authorized to use their best judgment in accordance with accepted principles in order to do this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. From past decisions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 03:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

15) *

points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks

Proposed. From past decisions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 03:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. We should always believe that one has good intentions and should make this place a warm and friendly community. Terence 10:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

15) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to

remove personal attacks

on sight.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. From past decisions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Terence 10:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

15)

Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.
Personal attacks which occur during the course of Arbitration either on the Arbitration pages or on the talk pages of the arbitrators fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration.
Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. From past decisions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. Terence 10:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

15) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Rama's Arrow posted e-mail messages on-wiki

1)

WP:ANI

, which included the e-mail addresses and real names of Wikipedia users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Well actually I do kinda oppose the FoF's proposed conclusions regarding the disclosures, but I will respond/explain my points fully when I submit my statement. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support You were wrong again, Aski. He opposed it.--D-Boy 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that RA posted email messages on-wiki; the evidence is in the ANI report.Sbhushan 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And he posted them again, even after apologising and being warned. The diffs were oversighted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed -- Samir 09:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I don't think even Rama would oppose this FoF. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I was there. I watched it 'live', so to speak. Not only did he post those emails(email addresses, names and all), but he posted it in spite of people on ANI(myself included) advising him against it. Sarvagnya 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow and DaGizza acted as meat puppet for Rumpelstiltskin223 (Hkelkar sock)

2) Evidence provided by Fowler&fowler in section Doosra [12] shows that Rama's Arrow and DaGizza acted as meat puppet for Rumpelstiltskin223 (Hkelkar sock). Rama's Arrow also reverted Nadirali’s edit on Rumpelstiltskin223 user page [13], where Nadirali identified Rumpelstiltskin223 as sockpuppet of Hkelkar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Sbhushan 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. AMbroodEY on his user page has mentioned that HKelkar joined cabal around January middle, Rama's Arrow was aware of cabal since that time and on-wiki evidence of tag team editing is also at the same time. This is lot less speculative than what RA has based his charge on.Sbhushan 13:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree that this is speculative and based on circumstantial evidence. I am willing to withdraw this.Sbhushan 17:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)~~ It is less speculative then Rama's Arrow's evidence.Sbhushan 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The evidence indicates that Rama utilized hkelkar as a tool to futher his Islamophobic/Anti-Pakistani agenda. He even blocked Szhaider (talk · contribs) after hkelkar did a revert for him. This is rather despicable conduct on the part of our "crusader for neutrality".Baka man 16:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--D-Boy 18:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative. Just like the kind of arguments RA has provided. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree with Nearly Headless Nick, don't go down to his level guys.--

Konstable 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Comment : Neither Baka, D-Boy nor Rama's Arrow , Dagizza can be considered as meatpuppets as per wikipedia meatpuppet guidelines. None of them are new accounts. None of them are single purpose accounts.--Indianstar 02:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

WP:POINT, but a good point - showing just how absurd the meatpuppet charges really are. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

No. Aside from the fact that Rama's Arrow was at that article before Hkelkar, we cannot describe this as "meatpuppetry" because (a) it was not clear at the time that Rumpelstiltskin was a sock - he was blocked as soon as this was proven - and (b) the same view was held by a number of editors. This proposal seems to be fatally flawed. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow posted e-mail messages

3) Rama's Arrow posted e-mail messages, but only after making several attempts to ascertain the community's wishes and hear any possible objections. ([14], [15])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Extreme invasion of privacy concerns.--D-Boy 17:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of editors on ANI and these pages have asked Rama's Arrow not to post email evidence and he still did. but this proposal is ridiculous and shows lack of remorse.Sbhushan 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were still objections. I pointed out that it was not viable to post evidence without the explicit agreement of the original sender and the recipient(s). — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Looking for objections to posting the e-mails is irrelevant. The information contained therein was private on face, contained a great deal of commentary by others that was irrelevant to what Rama's Arrow was proposing, and posting it was meant to sensationalize rather than solve the problem. Rama's Arow should have shown more discretion than to post the e-mails on ANI -- Samir 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Irrespective of the correctness of what he did, Rama's arrow was challenged, instigated many a times before he posted the email evidence. BTW: If somebody sends me a letter, am I not allowed to show it to my friends/whomever I wish? Praveen 16:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow did not breach confidentiality nor did he post personal information

4) In posting e-mails on Wikipedia, Rama's Arrow did not reveal any personal information that was not already present and known on Wikipedia. ([16] and [17], [18])

(5) Rama's Arrow did not breach confidentiality as he was a receiving party to the e-mails.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I didn't send you any email nor did I give you consent to read my email.--D-Boy 17:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand different views on same facts/arguments, but this proposal is ridiculous and shows lack of remorse.Sbhushan 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RA was not the original recipient. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - He also breached the trust of other editors, helping to create a climate of mistrust on Wikipedia. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail addresses are private information. Posting e-mails on ANI, complete with e-mail addresses and full headers, should not be done, even if the personal information contained therein (IRL names, etc.) is found elsewhere on wikipedia. I note that the personal information in question here decidedly is not present in its entirety on-wiki, further adding to the confidentiality breach. Rama's Arrow was informed of this a number of times, yet still continued to post e-mails a number of times. In my opinion, this showed poor judgment -- Samir 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakasuprman

6)

WP:NPOV. ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]

7) Bakasuprman encouraged

ideological battleground. ([26], [27], [28]

9) Bakasuprman violated the ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. ([29], [30], [31])

8) Bakasuprman abused and harassed other Wikipedia editors on racial and religious lines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--D-Boy 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this elusive on-wiki evidence?Sbhushan 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we accept RA's proposal, perhaps he should be blocked himself for severe violations of

WP:NPOV over various articles and pages. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Oppose - A vindictive attack on a positive contributor done by a rogue admin hell bent on justifying his opprobrious abuse of admin powers.Baka man 16:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment: The evidence shows that the anti-Hindu editors cornered the market on

WP:NPA, rather than Bakasuprman. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Comment: Entire RFA episode looks like child play. RFA has been named HKelkar2 to make use of HKelkar phobia in Wikipedia. Hkelkar is blocked from wikipedia. He is not criminal. Does Wikipedia has right to say that wikipedians should not have e-mail contacts with blocked users?--Indianstar 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous-Boy

10)

WP:NPOV. ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]

13) Dangerous-Boy violated the ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar.

11) Dangerous-Boy solicited meatpuppets and encouraged the infiltration of Wikipedia to

ideological battleground

.

12) Dangerous-Boy harassed other Wikipedia editors over religious identity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--D-Boy 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this elusive on-wiki evidence?Sbhushan 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the blocks? Where is the evidence? This is nothing but a mud-slinging spree initiated solely on the basis of caprice. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Dboy is a victim of groupthink incurred after his emotional outburst about Indian admins. Its nothing blockable, just needs cooldown time (which he has taken).Baka man 16:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The evidence is just too thin. This RfA should never have happened. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed many people including some good standing administrators threatening editors of Hinduism related articles after HKelkar episode. This RFA should not have been accepted. --Indianstar 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sbhushan

14)

WP:NPOV

.

15) Sbhushan attempted to target and harass

to prove a point

.

16) Sbhushan violated the ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--D-Boy 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this elusive on-wiki evidence? Evidence provided by me shows that from first note DBachmann assumed bad faith, was extremely uncivil and created and escallated this conflict. I tried every dispute resolution process over six months period to resolve conflict; they all failed because Dbachmann refuses to participate. This battleground is DBachmann's creation and ArbCom is requested to address this.Sbhushan 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preposterous. Sbhushan was not even an involved party in the Hkelkar case. Where are the blocks for harrassments? Please review the polices and only then make these kinds of proposals. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Dbachmann (talk · contribs) and Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs).Baka man 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

To the contrary,

WP:OWNs too many pages on Wikipedia. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

I very much doubt anyone's ability to harass

Dbachman! A careful study of Sbhushan's contributions indicate the truth in his assertions and reveal the high stress level of volunteering in building the project. Let us get rid of Hkelkar phobia and he should not cloud the actions of other editors. --Bhadani (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

ideological battlegrounds on Wikipedia

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

17)

.

18) Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington encouraged the violation of the above-listed Wikipedia policies, thus abusing his position and duty as a Wikipedia administrator.

19) Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington violated the ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, substantiate with diffs? I see you produced some "evidence", nice way to spend three weeks. Request to ArbCom: I would like to see the "evidence" against myself, as RA insists that I was the one "whodidit", it would be alright for me to see it over email. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--D-Boy 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this elusive on-wiki evidence?Sbhushan 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Bhadani - Bhadaniji, I never had a desire to bring him into this. Although we have had some differences, he co-nominated me for adminship. It was his complicity, his endorsement of Kelkar's sockpuppetry and his attempt to recruit meatpuppets to help Kelkar that has landed him in the cooler. And the evidence in question is HIS written word. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 20:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be dreaming. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Rama has not provided any evidence to suggest any wrongdoing by nick. Nick was instrumental in nabbing hkelkar while rama used hkelkar to further his islamophobic agenda.Baka man 16:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't know how he got dragged into this, but this seems to be a case of throwing a lot of mud on the wall and hoping some of it sticks. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of the quantity of the "mud". I will present it in different words: If you torture the data long enough, it will accept any thing. I have remained in touch (on-wiki and off-wiki) with the sir including telephonic conversations about personal matters, as also wikipedia related matters (not this arbitration). My impression of him is that he shall never do anything to harm the project, and his name should not have been dragged into this arbitration. --Bhadani (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail evidence

20) On-Wikipedia evidence verifies the claims made by e-mail evidence of the violation of Wikipedia policies by Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy, Sbhushan and user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and their knowledge and collusion with banned user Hkelkar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose stop invading people's privacy.--D-Boy 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this elusive on-wiki evidence? There is on-wiki evidence of Rama's Arrow and DaGizza working with Rumpelstiltskin223 (Hkelkar sock).Sbhushan 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - On wiki evidence illustrates Rama's Arrow has abused admin powers, promoted an islamophobic agenda, and colluded with hkelkar.Baka man 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There is no on-wiki evidence showing this, absolutely none. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow reposts private emails for a second time

7) Long after apologizing for doing so previously, Rama's Arrow has again posted private emails on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence page where a clerk has specifically indicated not to do so. This was removed and oversighted by User:Blnguyen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My apology was for the original posting and for any possible harm to the persons in question. However, I clearly told you guys that I would have to present relevant sentences of the conversations to complete the case. No one can afford to have any questions unanswered about this case. I am prepared to slug this out with you guys as I don't respect this inane insistence on the privacy of trolls. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --D-Boy 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First requirement is to provide on-wiki evidence; Rama's Arrow claimed to have lots of that. There are so many comments on these pages to not post any email evidence. Rama's Arrow's comments on these pages are extremenly uncivil and show no remorse for the harm he has done to others.Sbhushan 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did. Once again. He was apologetic for it in the beginning, and now he's not. And now he is calling me a troll, while vehemently defending his actions. This is ridiculous. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Our crusader for neutrality decided to go vigilante and engage in insubordination.Baka man 16:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed.--

Konstable 08:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Endorse. This was a very bad call. Email evidence can be emailed to the arbitrators. There is no need to repeat the offence. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting the e-mails flouted the significant opinion that they should not be posted, and was an egregious action in my opinion -- Samir 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBachmann is using Wikipedia as a platform to publish his POV

8)

Dbachmann

is publishing original research on wikipedia. Working with a tag team of editors, he is using Wikipedia as a platform to publish his POV and damaging quality of wikipedia product.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Over six months period and spread over 4 articles, I have yet to see a single verifiable content provided by DBachmann. When consensus is against him, he threatens edit warring.Sbhushan 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--D-Boy 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed conduct on

Out of India theory, etc. Baka man 20:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Evidence presented so far by Sbhushan and myself shows this to be true. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly - no doubt about it that

Dbachmann's behaviour and editing pattern. --Bhadani (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

is escalating the conflict on wikipedia.

DBachmann is creating a battleground on wikipedia

9)

Indigenous Aryans and Hindutva Propaganda

Proposed -- to resolve this conflict it is critical to resolve this underlying problem.Sbhushan 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--D-Boy 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Evidence corroborates to this statement.Baka man 20:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete oppose one cannot attack an editor for having different viewpoints. Dab was entitled to create Hindutva propaganda, even if his reasoning was rejected by many in the AfD. It was by no means an attack or nonsense article. 12:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Evidence presented so far by Sbhushan and myself shows this to be true. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DBachmann is a good and reasonable administrator. But when it comes to Hinduism related/India related articles, he acts like cop with unlimited powers. Few instances, I have seen him lending support based on editor instead of evaluating contents. I have not seen him pushing his POV, but definitely he objects neutral contents written by Indian editors. --Indianstar 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is really sad to see a "learned" editor to stoop so low to pass remarks to hurt the religious feelings of other users and belittle the users living in poor countries like India. --Bhadani (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did the arbcom accept this case to consider Dbachmann? I do not think it did. Seeing as there is no proposed decision content relating to him, I think it is safe to say this is not the case to propose things with regards to him. Picaroon (Talk) 18:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that he is an involved party, and this RfA gives him a good opportunity to clear his name from so many negative things being talked about him and about the utility and validity of his contributions. --Bhadani (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBachmann's behavior is very disruptive

10)

Dbachmann

removes sourced edits made in a neutral narrative. He labels other’s Hindutva Trolls without any justification. He is also extremly uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed -- evidence provided in evidence section.Sbhushan 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--D-Boy 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - One of the worst rogue admins on wikipedia.Baka man 20:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that he is one, but I'd take a rogue admin over a troll/meatpuppet anyday. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have the best of both worlds dont you. Trolls like Kathanar and Hornplease (and socks like Hkelkar) admire you and rogue admins like Dbachmann extol your virtues. You're killing two birds with one stone.Baka man 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence presented so far by Sbhushan and myself shows this to be true. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is misuse of admin rollback as well. I'll put it up with my evidence. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, I have seen DBachmann passing uncivil comments against few Indian editors. But it is aberration. He has also contributed constructively on India articles and helped many Indian editors. --Indianstar 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially this boils down to DBachmann holding one of the two polarised sets of views. I don't see his behaviour as any worse than others involved, though it could be better. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir has raised an interesting point - perhaps some admins use the rollbacks so frequently that they expose themselves - had they not been administrators they could have faced repeated blocks for violating 3RR. --Bhadani (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow requests to be desysopped

11) Rama's Arrow has requested to be desysopped

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support--D-Boy 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I had no interaction with Rama's Arrow before this RfArb. He came out of blue and blocked me on trumped up charges. I left a note on his talk page to explain my side of argument; he refused to even entertain a possibility that he might have made a mistake. He claimed lots of on-wiki evidence, but nothing is presented so far. He has shown no remorse for making these baseless accusations and abuse of privacy. His language and conduct during this RfArb is appalling. Before he requested “desysopped” on his talk page, he added all kind of phony finding of facts and remedies in this workshop. Does this show remorse? Does he acknowledge at this point that his action of blocking was not a good decision? Does his good deeds in past justify these actions? A line from Spiderman I — “with great power comes great responsibility”.Sbhushan 16:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Baka man 16:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

See diff.--

Konstable 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

That diff requires me to enter a username and password to enter the proxy. Sean William 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I was behind a proxy myself and forgot about it, link fixed now.--

Konstable 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

D-Boy, this is not a vote. Sean William 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he rethinks this, as I wrote on his talk page. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest him to reconsider his decision. I don't find any flaw in his adminship except handling this particular case.--Indianstar 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is relevant to the RfAr. A request for de-sysopping made when an admin was upset by this RfAr should only be carried through when cooler heads prevail. I think it's more than fair to assume that Nirav will not do anything averse with his admin tools in the interim. -- Samir 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see after the fact that Drini has already changed the rights. This should be considered to be a self-desysopping, wherein Nirav can request privileges back in the absence of an RfA -- Samir 18:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann uses his admin powers to bully others

12) Dbachmann misused this admin powers to block Sbhushan in content dispute [39], he also threatens edit warring against consensus [40]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed — evidence provided on evidence page [41] Sbhushan 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--D-Boy 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence? Guy (Help!) 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - streams of evidence to back up this statement.Baka man 20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: [[42]] [[43]] [[44]] [[45]] ॐ Priyanath talk 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the evidence. Once he called me a troll - and this shows that he was bullying me. He was preparing the ground work to eliminate me from Wikipedia. Now, please don't tell me that I am violating good faith. --Bhadani (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never interacted with

User:Dbachmann and can't provide comment on his administrative actions, but I was honestly perplexed by his incivility toward Bhadani. While I'm not sure this is related to the RfAr in question, I think an apology to Bhadani is long overdue, and would go a long way in mending the fences of good faith among many users here -- Samir 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Not a party in this case, but see

^{Denny Crane.} 05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

13) Rama's Arrow has left a message on his user page stating that he has left wikipedia and that he should be desysopped. Drini has removed RA's admin rights. [46]

Rama's Arrow has been desysopped per his request

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just for the record - I am not going to request re-sysopping out of courtesy to ArbCom and this case - I shall let ArbCom decide if its ok or not. I'm actually glad this distractive issue is gone for the time being. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some consideration, I've decided to request the return of my sysop tools. I have respect for ArbCom, but I have always been confident of my ability to discharge my duties. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - if anything can be learned from this Rfa is that RA cannot be trusted. I would not want him to an admin after he falsely persecuted some of us. he betrayed his once friend Ambroodey. He as shown no integrity, violated our privacy, and acted extremely uncivil as shown through this workshop. his actions have shown that he is not admin material and I feel he would persecute some of us again give the chance with his admin tools. His evidence and attitude have clearly he has an agenda against some of us.--D-Boy 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Rama's Arrow has been resysopped per his request

14) Rama's Arrow has been resysopped per his request

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Needs to be reversed.--

Konstable 21:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Agreed. He's as incivil as ever.--D-Boy 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blocks of Bakasuprman, Sbhushan and Dangerous-Boy were justified

15) Based on the off-wiki and on-wiki evidence shown, Rama's Arrow was justified in blocking these editors for meatpuppetry and disruptive editing. ([47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is the central question ArbCom needs to answer. Now that both off-wiki and on-wiki evidence has been provided, was the decision I made the right one or not? If ArbCom closes this case without answering this question, I will have no choice but to reinforce my decision based on the consensus at the ANI decision - of course, that will be controversial and the ensuing fracas will bring us back to square one. So I ask ArbCom to answer this question one way or another, for damned sure. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will be very interested to know what the arbs think, since they saw fit to ignore my first request for guidance sent on April 17. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As justified as your accusations of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering these pages were edited by BhaiSaab, and have remained on my watchlist, this is ludicrous. By the way I'm sure Rama's colorful vocabulary is more suited to

civil environment.Baka man 03:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

I don't see any justification. Baka is right. How the hell do you survive in Baltimore? People there would eat you alive.--D-Boy 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no on-wiki evidence of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry presented yet. So called "evidence" presented so far is fiction, fantasy, and forgery[61]. RA's accusations are baseless and his decision was wrong. As I said in note earlier [62], we have passed point of no return. RA should be held responsible for lack of judgment/maturity. He has misused his admin powers and shows no remorse for this mud-slinging exercise. Sbhushan 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

When did it become 'meatpuppetry' and 'disruptive editing? On ANI you 'explicitly' said,

“

Let's be clear here - some people are mistakenly assuming that Baka was blocked for sharing Hkelkar's POVs. That is not the case - the reality is explicit meatpuppetry.

”

So when did 'disruption' come into the picture? Why are we discussing content issues of zillion sundry articles on this arbcom? Have they been through any form of RfC or DR yet? Sarvagnya 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The question in my mind is whether this was malicious or simply overzealous, I do not think we can credibly call it justified. I would say these blocks display extremely poor judgement, and (much worse) Rama's Arrow's subsequent refusal to accept the possibility he may be wrong compounds that. I am all for defending the wiki against POV-pushers, but that is not what this looks like to me. Political events such as those in dispute have the tendency to polarise opinion; not everybody on either side is a meatpuppet of everyone else on that side, and edit warring between numerous editors is a reason for protection, not blocking everyone in sight. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, just as many admins were opposed. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no on-wiki evidence to substantiate charges of
meatpuppetry

16) Links to off-wiki forums/websites and diffs pertaining to sundry content/POV issues, revert warring, incivility etc., on dozens of articles apart, there is not one on-wiki

diff

which supports Rama's Arrow's charges of "explicit meatpuppetry".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support - Sarvagnya hits the target here. Civility is a non-issue if both sides are comfortable bearing the brunt of incivility.Baka man 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only emails, nothing else. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree— No on-wiki evidence presented so far to support "explicit meatpuppetry".Sbhushan 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - RA made a fool out of himself on this issue.--D-Boy 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed - Sarvagnya 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I haven't seen any yet, and I don't think we will. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar

xx) Hkelkar is banned from Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Hkelkar is a known user of sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Obviously. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A user dumb enough to get blocked every week before, during, and after his banning should receive this sort of punishment.Baka man 16:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree— He is already banned for life.Sbhushan 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Propose. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree So can he be banned for his next lifetime also? ॐ Priyanath talk 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow's block of Anwar saadat

n) Rama's Arrow blocked Anwar saadat inappropriately and used admin rollback to revert his edits. – [63].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 03:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(LOL) Attack an admin for being an admin. Anwar was revert-warring against consensus, and without any honest effort to discuss. Restoring a consensus version is not beyond my rights. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)e[reply]

Did you even bother reading policies before accepting your nomination statement? There is a reason we have policies and guidelines, you know, and that is "to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia and its users". Could you please enlighten us as to which policy did Anwar breach for which he was blocked? He hadn't even committed 3RR. You are solely blocking to punish users. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liar, liar, eh, Porpington? Anwar's block was endorsed by EVERYBODY on the ANI report - user:FayssalF, user:Priyanath, user:Nick, user:Isotope23, user:Radiant! and your beloved friend user:Bakasuprman! Opposition - apparently, only you (not that you had the balls to say that on the ANI report). As for reading policies and guidelines, I am certainly ignorant of the ones you've cooked up in your own delusional mind. Cheerio, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because he was being uncivil himself while placing his note on the admin noticeboard. And most of the admins are probably not aware of your past conduct. You have unabashedly used admin tools against users you have been involved with. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Newyorkbrad is correct. I do greatly regret my incivility throughout the course of this case. I give my solemn pledge to NEVER again lose my cool or behave rudely with anyone at any time. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is.--D-Boy 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The tone of discourse between some of you is becoming truly awful. Better is expected, especially from administrators. Newyorkbrad 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow has been uncivil

n) Rama's Arrow has been consistently uncivil throughout the arbitration process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been incivil, but definitely not "consistently." I realize my mistakes, but the temperatures on ArbCom workshops are just a little lower than on the Sun. Sometimes it takes a bit of force to get oneself heard. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - He insulted me on my talk page. Such behavior of an admin is unbecoming.--D-Boy 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - A part of Rama's rationale for blocking me was supposed incivility. I believe a tu quoque argument is at hand, however I believe I have been rather cool and civil (took a wikibreak). If I am a small ember, Rama' is a full blown inferno.Baka man 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Rama's Arrow's blocks

n) Rama's Arrow's block of Bakasuprman, Dangerous Boy, Sbhushan and Anupamsr were inappropriate and punitive. They were made contrary to the

official blocking policy

on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(LOL x 10) the blocks were endorsed by a large number of admins and other users, forming a consensus. A minority led by you caused all the fracas. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal, D-Boy. Rama will let us know where his blocks were endorsed by the community "forming a consensus". Consensus is formed within the purview of policy and nowhere else. RA has this tendency of blocking first and talking later. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 03:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from my evidence statement: 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. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please keep the emails with yourself. Aldux, Dbachmann, Aksi great, DaGizza, Akhilleus (Goa Inquisition), Rudrasharman, Proabivouac, Hornplease and Buddhipriya *have been* involved with Bakasuprman in the past. As for your wheel-war, admins *do not* repeat an admin action when [they] know that an administrator opposes it. There were administrators opposing the block on the very grounds it was based. There was no consensus for the blocks; that you chose to block the users before initiating a discussion does not change the facts. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 03:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins that were involved in your little cabal.--D-Boy 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

n)

meatpuppetry to harass users who have a dispute with him. ([64]

.
2) For enacting blocks against the official blocking policy and without concrete evidence, on Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy, Sbhushan and Anupamsr.
3) For a consistent pattern of incivility and personal attacks during the Arbitration process, and lack of judgment while blocking other editors and using admin paraphernalia – [65].

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>_>...don't you ever give up?--D-Boy 07:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to NYB - The obvious point of the diff is to let someone do an ip check on the ip address. This ip took to harassing Malber (in dispute with Porpington) on Porpington's own talkpage. It was the only edit this ip made (at the time). To the best of my knowledge (I am not a checkuser clerk), that ip belongs to the [removed personal information] area, which is Porpington's place of residence (as far as I know). Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are disclosing personal information, Rama's Arrow. Please do not do this again. The IP does not resolve to my area, please check your facts correctly. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address (via traceroute) looks like its located in Madhya Pradesh or Maharashtra, not Gujarat (the purported residence of Nick).Baka man 02:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The cited diff is woefully insufficient evidence to support this. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

n) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Rama's arrow is desysopped

1) For breaching confidentiality in posting private correspondence on

WP:ANI, including the real names and e-mail addresses of Wikipedia editors, in the absence of the consent of all addressees and senders of e-mails, Rama's Arrow's administrative privileges are revoked. He may re-apply for adminship at any time through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support abuse of power under color of authority--D-Boy 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support exposing personal information without a good justification. Based on escalation at ANI, he should have got guidance from ArbCom before exposing private correspondence.Sbhushan 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited and enlarged. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the supportive and abusive comments. Frankly, I can't care less about adminship and if ArbCom feels desysopping is needed, so be it - if I'm not empowered to do my job of protecting Wikipedia, what's the point of being an administrator? I'm certainly not interested in all this whining, bitching, moaning and endless arguing. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're not interested in this arbcom, then you never should have blocked us and dragged our names through the mud in the first place. What are we supposed to do? Sit there and not do anything while you post private information, accuse us of meatpuppetry, and then block us without an arbcom! you don't deserve to be an admin with such as atittude.--D-Boy 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I was saying that I'm not interested in this case, I would never have filed the request or pledged to provide the case and evidence by Sunday or Monday latest. All I was saying is that I don't mind the prospect of being desysopped as I don't covet adminship, unlike many others. If ArbCom decides that my actions were wrong, I obviously shouldn't stand in the way of the community's work nor waste my own time. And unlike you and your cabal, I am not angry (anymore) or threatened - I will do my best to see that this case is conducted in an orderly way and that everything is explained and every detail provided. I will do my best not holler and bitch on every occasion like you. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Also, with your last line, please remember

WP:CIVIL. It's disheartening to hear such language from you.--D-Boy 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

I told you guys before that I would have to post relevant snipets of the conversations to provide context and continuity. I cannot respect your nonsense about "privacy" violations because (a) I was party to the e-mails (there is no ownership) and (b) is it not clear that the situation is most serious? As far as this is concerned, kiss my rear. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Its not like this is misguided vigilanteism. This is the second time arbcom has had the misfortune to listen to Rama's arrow justify his unilateral attacks on users. I called him out on him going after the Pakistani users unilaterally (noting a conflict of interest) even when I had no love for them myself. It seems this would be a sensible preventative measure.Baka man 22:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I figure someone else is going to propose it eventually, and it may as well come from someone who doesn't support it: my personal thought is that it is too harsh -- especially in context of Nirav's other exceptional administrative contributions -- and I much prefer number 2 below -- Samir 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been dismayed by the behaviour of Rama's Arrow during this RfAr and support the de-sysopping of User:Rama's Arrow. His behaviour in the arbitration process has been atrociously incivil. His administrative actions in this case were ill-advised, and were better handled in a more discreet and less sensational manner. Upon review, it seems as though he too often lets his anger guide his administrative choices. I have completely lost faith in his decision making, and think that his administrative actions in this case have harmed as opposed to helped the encyclopedia. -- Samir 06:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree that someone is going to propose it. I wholeheartedly oppose this move. I think Nirav did what he thought was right to do in light of the evidence he had. Though he blocked the users, he did make a note at ANI about it. The move was supported by a lot of admins and users (and was opposed too). As consensus was not reached about the validity of the block and evidence, this ArbCom case was opened. There is nothing wrong with what Rama did, this is just how things can turn out to be in wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nirav has a long history of being one of the most fair and even-handed admins on Wikipedia. Even though I believe that publishing people's real names and email addresses on ANI showed extremely poor judgment, his long and very positive track record far outweighs this one-time mistake. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:The conversation at ANI makes clear that Nirav was very doubtful about the details, but came under such fire for his blocks from a subset of people - the same now objecting to his posting the emails - that he was momentarily not thinking straight. Clearly an aberration. Hornplease 13:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: While I do not have any comments to offer on the merits of the blocks, in my opinion (which I had also presented somewhere in some other words) Rama was forced to reproduce the e-mails, and I think he did this most reluctantly. Considering the totality of circumstances, there is no point in desysopping him. We require administrators who can act fast in the interests of the project. --Bhadani (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, I have striken your vote so as not to confuse people.--

Konstable 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Oppose Even though Nirav has been uncivil to the other parties in this ArbCom case (see his comments above), I don't think desysopping him is the right course of action. As Samir said, the second proposal seems to be best course of action in this case. ~~Nishkid64 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

After looking through some more evidence, I have changed my mind. Rama has used his administrative tools in previous occasions to assert an authority over other users he is involved in disputes with. These are not isolated incidents, and he's had this history of using his emotions to orchestrate his administrative actions, such as blocks against other users. He's jumped on other editors he's fighting against, and he uses his blocking tool when he is involved in a dispute with that particular user. One example is his actions on Muhammad Iqbal. There was a content dispute with Szhaider (talk · contribs) (blocked now for a year as part of the India-Pakistan ArbCom case), and RA continued to his administrative rollback while discussing the article on the other user's talk page. Once the user had violated 3RR policy, RA made the situation worse by instigating a one-week block against the user. He's clearly going to have a biased interpretation of the situation, since he was directly involved in it, and those type of actions should be dealt with by uninvolved neutral admins. His excessive actions in this case (without first discussing) were unwarranted, and his previous history indicates that he has not followed common procedure in dealing with users he is involved in disputes with. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we voting? Only the Arbitrators vote. We discuss. Desysopping Rama's Arrow would be a grossly punitive measure. In my opinon, administrators should only be desysopped after showing a long term lack of judgement. Rama's Arrow has done quite a lot of good for the project, and that's something we can't forget. Sean William 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has contributed lot for Wikipedia. I feel he has abused his powers in this case. But Desysopping is too much punishment.--Indianstar 09:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Wikipedia should be punitive, only preventative - that's the theory at least.--

Konstable 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

I was laying off before now, as I do believe that punitive desysoppings and blocks do not work on Wikipedia while Rama's Arrow had apologized. However Rama's apology proved hollow as he yet again reposted private emails, very well knowing the opposition towards it and a big bold note on the evidence page asking him not to. He obviously will not learn and needs to be removed from his position of trust. (Please note that it has been oversighted and I cannot provide diffs).--

Konstable 08:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

I support this remedy, repeated privacy violation after the previous apology is completely unacceptable and a clear forfeiture of trust. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow is admonished for breaching confidentiality

2) For breaching confidentiality in posting private correspondence on

WP:ANI, including the real names and e-mail addresses of Wikipedia editors, in the absence of the consent of all addressees and senders of e-mails, Rama's Arrow

is strongly admonished.

Support abuse of power under color of authority--D-Boy 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support exposing personal information without a good justification. Based on escalation at ANI, he should have got guidance from ArbCom before exposing private correspondence.

Actually Samir, I am more inclined to oppose/reject this "remedy" than the ones calling for my desysopping. I completely reject all your conclusions regarding disclosure, and I will explain my points in my case/evidence statement. I have apologized already for any possible harm due to my indiscretion, but I will not respect any reprimand for doing something I believe was 100% correct. And I do request that all parties be patient and hear out what I and the other 3-4 parties currently away have to say, before reaching their conclusions. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This course of action seems to be the best fit for a confidentiality breach. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed -- Samir 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I do not find anything unusual in Rama disclosing the contents of the e-mails including the real names, if any. There is no independent verification of the real names used in the e-mails and even if the users involved volunteer and accept the names as mentioned in the e-mails concerned, the position should not change as Rama was forced to publish the e-mails as no one was willing to listen to him and accept the good faith on his part, and so he was forced to publish the e-mails. Moreover, when people are exchanging e-mails relating to wikipedia, there should be no fuss about publishing the same unless people are trying to hide something from the community of wikipedians. Further, as regards obtaining the guidance of the ArbCom in publishing the e-mails, I would like to add that if Rama was wrong in publishing the e-mails, no guidance from ArbCom would have validated the same as a wrong thing is a wrong thing ab initio, and can not be justified by any other entity - ArbCom or all the one million plus wikipedians combined. --Bhadani (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I differ from your view. E-Mail address is the personal information whether name is real or fictitious. He should not have used e-mail as evidence to act. Only on-wiki activities should be used as evidence. Wikipedia allows e-mail for Off-wiki collaboration.--Indianstar 09:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rama was forced to publish the e-mails as no one was willing to listen to him and accept the good faith on his part, and so he was forced to publish the e-mails. - Thats as far from the truth as one possibly can take it. For starters, when an admin indefs a user, the least I'd expect of the admin is a decent explanation of why he's handing out the block. RA offered no explanations whatsoever. And he hasnt yet. Obviously, people demanded evidence. And once they learned that the evidence was actually private emails, they urged him NOT to release it on-wiki. RA disregarded such advise and released it. Saying that he was forced to release it is funny. Sarvagnya 09:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Saying personal e-mail as evidence for meat puppet looks funny to me. Hkelkar can send e-mail to anybody. Others cannot control receiving e-mails from him. Tomorrow he can send e-mail to Rama's arrow about vandalism in one of the featured articles written by him. If Rama's arrow acts on that vandalism, does he become meat puppet of Hkelkar. If Hkelkar sends e-mail to Jimbo and if somebody releases that e-mail whether Jimbo will become meat puppet of Hkelkar?. Rama's Arrow is excellent wikipedia contributor. Most of the people seems to be supporting him because of his contribution to wikipedia without evaluating whether he has done right thing in this case as Administrator. Any action on this case against Baka & others will set wrong precedent for Wikipedia Administrators to act based on e-mails. Wikipedia should come out of Hkelkar phobia. Any action on this case will encourage Hkelkar to finish people he does not like--Indianstar 09:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was a bad move by Rama's Arrow in an otherwise very positive time serving as an admin on Wikipedia. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's arrow is desysopped

3) For blocking editor's indefinitely without a single evidence of meat-puppet activity. His actions based on speculation are against established guidelines. In absence of clear rules, he should have asked guidance from ArbCom before taking action. He has damaged editors' credibility and stopped them from contributing to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support - Where is even a single diff of me engaging in sock/meat puppet activity? Aksi has posted some on-wiki evidence related to some editors - where is evidence against me? Also, don't you think we should hold off on remedies and actions till evidence is presented? RA has not presented any evidence yet. He claimed to have lots of on-wiki evidence, why is he not presenting it? He also posted private and confidential information about me on public site without justification. I am getting hate email because of his actions and his actions have turned me off from more contribution to the project. I request ArbCom to force RA to present his evidence. Private emails should NOT to be shared in public. Sbhushan 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support He slandered me! --D-Boy 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Just wondering why is this proposed twice? Was it accidental? See two sections above if you haven't noticed. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakasuprman

5)

WP:NPOV. ([66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Where's the evidence? --D-Boy 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this elusive on-wiki evidence to support finding of facts? How can you remedy something you have not supported with evidence?Sbhushan 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportAll those involved need to leave Wikipedia on there own or be asked asked to till things cool down.Adyarboy 18:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only involved case here?.Baka man 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose No convincing evidence, and a productive editor. This RfA should never have begun. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even before the case began, I never saw any evidence of wrongdoings by Bakasuprman. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposition was solely based on caprice. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rama's Arrow please stop your witch-hunt activities.

Talk to me? 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

Never saw this. Support, per my evidence. Fat lot of good it'll do, given that nobody else has the time to plow through the mound of ordure that is the fellow's contrib history. Hornplease 03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sbhushan

6)

WP:NPOV

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Where's the evidence? --D-Boy 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this elusive on-wiki evidence to support finding of facts? How can you remedy something you have not supported with evidence?Sbhushan 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sbhushan is a victim of

blame the victim groupthink at the hands of a small segment of misbehaving admins.Baka man 16:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Changed section header which didn't match up with the content. I believe I did this correctly, but Rama's Arrow please double-check. (No comment on the merits, of course.) Newyorkbrad 17:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose He has been the victim, not the criminal. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous-Boy

7)

WP:NPOV. ([73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Where's the evidence? --D-Boy 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this elusive on-wiki evidence to support finding of facts? How can you remedy something you have not supported with evidence?Sbhushan 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose This RfA should never have happened. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

8)

ideological battlegrounds on Wikipedia

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Where's the evidence? --D-Boy 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this elusive on-wiki evidence to support finding of facts? How can you remedy something you have not supported with evidence?Sbhushan 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose No evidence, this RfA should never have happened. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose coming from Mr. "unfounded negativity of Muslims", I find the word ideology to be ironic.Baka man 03:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

9)

request for adminship

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Where's the evidence? This should happen to RA. The man obviously has an agenda here.--D-Boy 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this elusive on-wiki evidence to support finding of facts? How can you remedy something you have not supported with evidence?Sbhushan 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose No evidence, this RfA should never have happened. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like tit for tat. No logic for desysopping anybody. --Indianstar 05:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama was in fact using hkelkar to edit war. Nick never did so.Baka man 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Gr8India 02:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)— Gr8India (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Vote of thanks

10)

WP:NPOV

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose If anything else Dagizza, RA, and Aski should apologize to all parties for this slander, fabricating malicious lies, and harassing users. RA's blocking was severely uncalled for has caused frustration for many. He drove away good editors such as baka. RA, dagizza, and aski have no business being admins with such behavior --D-Boy 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke. Rama's arrow expects to be thanked for creating this mess and draging names through mud? They should provide public appology for their actions.Sbhushan 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Scorned -

WP:BJAODN.Baka man 04:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

So you have proposed to thank yourself?. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment This RFA does not have any substance. DaGizza, Aksi great, AMbroodEY and Rama's Arrow should be thanked for their extraordinary contributions to wikipedia. There is no need to thank them for their roles in this RFA.--Indianstar 05:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is this a proposed remedy to the problem???? I think Rama's Arrow is forgetting what the RFAr is about. It also seems odd that he proposing the idea of thanking himself for his contributions to Wikipedia as a remedy to the problem.

Can I propose a finding of fact congratulating myself on my services to the project? Guy (Help!) 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Indianstar. I'd thank RA for his FAs anyday. But not for abuse of his admin powers. Sarvagnya 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose we don't thank people for witch-hunt.

Talk to me? 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

Publication of e-mails on Wikipedia

11) The Wikipedia community of editors is strongly discouraged from publishing e-mails on Wikipedia.

12) Any e-mail believed to be providing evidence of disruptive activities, violation of ArbCom rulings and Wikipedia policies should be privately transmitted to administrators and any arbitrator.

13) Administrators are instructed to delete any posted e-mail without hesitation and warn the posting editor against doing so in the future.

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - only 11 and 13. --D-Boy 17:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this appology by Rama's Arrow for publishing email contents. It is too little too late.Sbhushan 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He proposed this, and then reposted the contents, didn't he? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Anupamsr

14) Anupamsr (talk · contribs) is affirmed as an editor in good standing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--D-Boy 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anupamsr also got his name dragged into this for no reason, same as others. This remedy should apply to all user targetted by Rama's Arrow.Sbhushan 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support Yet another editor dragged into an RfA that should not have happened. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Anupamsr's name should be cleared. --Bhadani (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow should tender an unconditional apology to Anupamsr. Anupamsr had abandoned his previous account specifically to guard his privacy. But RA's ill informed block ensured that his privacy was violated all over again. This is a very serious lapse on RA's part. Also, to make things worse, RA adopted a condescending tone while unblocking Anupam... he was like.."dont do it again"!! That was unbridled arrogance. First he blocked anupam for no fault which effectively violated anupam's privacy and next he had the gall to act all pompous when he unblocked him! This was an extraordinarily frivolous block and the arbcom should see if anupam's block log can be cleared. Sarvagnya 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Rama's Arrow himself proposed this remedy can probably be taken to indicate he realizes his mistake, and I'm pretty sure all parties involved consider Anupamsr an editor in good standing. Therefore, I am not sure the necessity of this proposal, unless Anupamsr has specifically requested it. Picaroon (Talk) 22:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Sarvagyna's proposal for clearing Anupamsr's block log. His block is unwarranted.--Indianstar 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users are "in good standing" by default. Unblocking him would be confirmation enough. If that is all that is meant by this proposal, it should be made clear. — CharlotteWebb 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dagizza is desysopped

15) Let the people adhere to the fact that Dagizza has mocked me, insulted me, harassed me, and falsely acussed me on my talk page: [80]. Such behavior is unbecoming of an admin and irresponsible as well.

Comment by Arbitrators:

'Comment by parties:

Proposed - --D-Boy 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with D-Boy — DaGizza's speculation about the radical site and linking it with D-Boy based on no evidence started this sorry mess. Admins should be held responsible for lack of judgement and maturity.Sbhushan 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More —This comment from DaGizza on D-Boy's talk page is juvenile.[81] This kind of person should not be given any power.Sbhushan 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purely ridiculous and vindictive. Nothing remotely honest or respectful about this.Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, there are many proposals that are dishonest and disrespectful, and they almost all come from a certain crusader of neutrality.Baka man 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment Dagizza is honest,sincere & dedicated administrator. Allegation lacks substance.--Indianstar 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. You are not even alleging that he has misused his power as an administrator. — CharlotteWebb 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good editor and admin, one time bad judgment, learned lesson, let's move on. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanath - exactly WHAT did Gizza do that you call a "one time bad judgment?" I did the blockings, I filed the case. Gizza only compiled a report on infiltration tactics being circulated on radical websites. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was bad judgment for DaGizza to add fuel to a fire that is only causing bad will among Hindu editors, and is going to end up with no blocks. But no big deal in my opinion. His contributions, and yours, far outweigh this RfA. I really think the Arbitration Committee is getting tired of all this personal bickering. Let's move on, please. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That is only causing bad will amongst Hindu editors" - so that is your concern, is it? Hindus should not fight Hindus, that's what you're sayin'? I'm sorry but this is exactly what is wrong with your attitude - it is

WP:NPOV that is on the line, not the well-being of a particular demographic of editors. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

Support--~~Gr8India 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)~~— Gr8India (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"There is no end to the unfounded negativity of Muslims". Who are you trying to please?Baka man 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As

Jimbo Wales said, we are advocates outside, but here we are Wikipedians only. My political views have no bearing on my role as a Wikipedian. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

As evidenced in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan.Baka man 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(LOL) My God! Your desperation is hilarious - did u apparently forget what role you played, whose side you were on in that case? More than 70% of the evidence given by the trio was against YOU. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I was desperate, rather than making terse and sometimes sarcastic statements, I would be hysterical and prone to making rash statements not corroborating with or relevant to any arguments on this case. When you talk about sides, did you forget

Wikipedia isn't a battleground? I didnt run into Nadirali, et. al. much except on talk pages, you OTOH have a much more checkered history, involving hkelkar and vigilante admin action. I even criticized you for sidestepping wikipolicy on their blocks. 70%, in light of this ANI section seems laughable, 7% perhaps.Baka man 00:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply