Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

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

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

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

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

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Bakasuprman

[edit] TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs) Labels Users

Here's some diffs to back it up. "fascist" and "fascist 2" and paid agent of the RSS. He also tried to mob me by posting messages on the Muslim Guild about Active hindutvavadis. He also asked USer:Nobleeagle if nobleeagle was "doing a PR for Gujarat government,Narendra Modi and Hindutva organisations". Its also funny how TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs) uses Hindutva as an insult. Hindutva = Hindu Tattva= Being Hindu . Is being a Hindu now fascism ? ArbCom please give me an answer, I would really like to know. If there are, there are 1 billion fascists around the world.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) has anti-Semitic views

As User:Hkelkar is Jewish, this warrants some discussion. User:Samir (The Scope) has found at least three instances of anti-Semitic views expressed. One is where he states Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (holocaust denier) is an awesome guy on the MedCab page. The next day he decided he needed to get it into Hkelkar's head that he thinks Ahmadinejad is awesome. He also said Israel shouldn't be on a map and Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the US. He also called Zionists terrorists. If one looks at the pages Holocaust denial and new anti-Semitism a person could see that BhaiSaab's remarks would have been highly unfortunate anyways, and given the fact that Hkelkar is Jewish, they are downright unacceptable.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - I found an interesting discussion between BhaiSaab and another Jewish user on User_talk:BhaiSaab/A6#Criticism and User_talk:Dev920/Achive2#Islam_2 . Bakaman Bakatalk 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the links to the appropriate archives. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BhaiSaab (talk · contribs)'s early trolling

My unfortunate run-in with this user occurred at the now notorious "Fundy Watch" Afd. At that time I was a very new editor, not knowing the rules/tricks/etc. of Wikipedia. After the AfD, he began to harrass all the Hindu editors (myself, Shiva's trident, and Dboy). It started when him and another user (Timothy Usher (talk · contribs) inactive on wikipedia) tried to get Dboy booked for "Spam solicitation" also [2]. While looking for a page to stamp his POV over, he found Indian caste system. There he vandalized the section on the Muslim caste system under the canard of copyright [3][4][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_caste_system&diff=prev&oldid=68264510][5][6]. While I was reporting him to 3RR here, I was blocked under the canard of "Copyvio" by a solicitation from BS [7]. Then while I was reeling from the first block in bad faith, he decided to get one of his "Fundy Watch" friends to block me. This was an expression of amazing bad faith. After that Blnguyen (talk · contribs) stepped in, and ended the nonsense. BhaiSaab and Ikonoblast (talk · contribs) (nee Holywarrior) formed a cabal against me [8][9][10][11]. And an RFC was filed against me (a copy of which can be found at USer:Bakasuprman/Rfcopy), where consensus supported me against the filer of the RFC, found to have been acting in bad faith. If one refers to USer talk:Blnguyen and numerous archives, they will see the immense amount of baiting and nonsesne we had to deal with. During early august, the diifs are so numerous that its better to merely show logs of his "contributions" here and here. Bakaman Bakatalk 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TwoHorned (talk · contribs) is a problematic user

Sockpuppetry

In TwoHorned (talk · contribs) 's evidence below, he states that

“ I’ve been involved in the redaction of the “Controversies” part of the Koenraad Elst article; this controversial author had in the beginning an apological article, and I worked on documenting the “Controversies” section. I also worked thoroughly the discussion page of Koenraad Elst article, first under my first id on Wikipedia AlexOriens, an id I almost don’t use anymore, then under my present id, TwoHorned. ”

[12]

Well by looking at AlexOriens contribs and TwoHorned contribs around the end of March 2006, one would see both articles solely edited the Koenraad Elst page and the respective talk page. Since he has admitted to AlexOriens being him, there is nothing to prove, TwoHorned was using a sock to edit Koenraad Elst and Talk:Koenraad Elst.

Violation of WP:NOT

Hostilities flared up at Talk:koenraad Elst. After TwoHorned decided to approach me in a sane fashion here and here I decided to work for a compromise with him. On this RfAR he attacked me on the evidence page in one of these numerous diffs trying to show I am in a group of disruptive editors. Once I confronted him on the workshop page, he stated that it was his idea for a "ceasefire". This is where Wikipedia is not a battleground comes in. If he had said compromise, I would probably have not made this evidence section, but no we were obviously at war, and it had to be a ceasefire. The he goes on to suggest " I don't like it too, to redisplay disputes on which we agreed. You also are writing hard sentences against me as this ArbCom case is going along, despite our "local" agreement. And I hope you don't like it too. But, well, we have to display admins under what circumstances we get here now. A case is not an easy thing." . I find it highly insulting to be treated as "collateral damage" by a user. This is the amazing lengths users go to to harass other users, they treat good-faith contributors as "collateral damage" in their POV-pushing.

Personal Attacks/Incivility and Vandalism and Lies

He has an issue with referring to users as "bozos"[13][14][15]. He accused me of hatred and also suggested that I was a sock of Hkelkar (lol other side of country) [16]

He then started littering my page with bogus warnings (none of which were cited with diffs, which makes it vandalism of my user talk page).

After finding out I promptly remove vandalism from my userpage, he went to WP:PAIN with a shoddy case of one-sided half truths [17], misrepresenting diffs and accusing me of racism (I dont have personal prejudices against any religion or race). After I had responded to his spurious accusations, he found the need to try and lie some more to cover up the lies he had already made [18] accused me of being racist ("anti-european") needless to say "european" is not a race.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hornplease (talk · contribs) is incivil and is a tendentious editor

Well Hornplease (talk · contribs) has a nice superiority complex that makes him act as if he has the authority to lord it out over editors. Each point will be backed up with diffs supporting it. I admit I have been temperamental, but being belittled by self-righteous users generally does not warrant a positive response. I have had no knowledge of WP:DE before this, nobody cared to tell me about it.

"I want"

Hornplease's I want phrases get annoying especially when editors have verifed content with the only flaw of not meeting Hornplease's POV. One may look at Talk:Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia where I had provided enough proof to create a nice foundation for assertion to meet guidelines for Category:Hindu politicians because of his public, Hindu coronation ceremony.

When I provided proof of self-identification Hornplease repeated the same nonsense over and over [19],[20] . His "my POV or the high-POV" stance has extended to editors Hkelkar (talk · contribs) as well, as one can see from these diffs.[21],implying stupidness as well.
"I'm smarter/better than you"/"I am your boss"

Another well-worn tactic of Hornplease. On his own user page he states that he doesnt listen to common sense, only pointy-headed academic arguments.

Lately, there was a discussion on Hkelkar's jewishness on SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)'s page. Hornplease made an attack on another user, an tried to imply we all were stupid because we didnt catch some "irony on SlimVirgin's part.[22]. MAny times he has told myself and other users to "live with it", "don't lose your shirt","find a fight you can win" when he feels he is correct [23][24][25]. He also tries to lecture Hkelkar and me here while joining with BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) for POV-pushing [26], [27]. Of course saying "I've repeated myself the nth time" (if we didnt listen n times there may be a logical reason for that) implies that we have thick skulls [28]. He told Freedom Skies (talk · contribs) to "get a blog" [29] and tried to act as if he had the authority to lord over FreedomSkies [30]. He told me I was "churlish" and that using the word obstinate to describe his actions made me appear vulgar. He accused Hkelkar of breing temperamental here [31]

Also in discussion with Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs) he tried lecture Nearly Headless Nick about being civil (when Nick was being perfectly civil) and pretending not to be a POV-pusher [32]. He was strongly censured by nearly headless nick for this [33] and his misrepresentations and POV-pushing were unmasked.

Misrepresentations/Double-standards
On Talk:Pseudo-secularism Nidhishsinghal (talk · contribs) had enough to prove that The Hindu's condemnation of the Mohammed Cartoons and upholdment (is that a word? lol) of the paintings of Naked Hindu deities was an example of pseudo-secular conduct. He misrepresented the significance of Khajuraho [34] and when I called him out on those lies he said "the sound you hear is of me not caring" indicating his unwillingness to concede a point. Luckily for him I did not tell him to "live with it" or engage in bloating and self-righteous nonsense like he did to me on other pages. While connecting two-related pages in or on the part of Hindu editors, on Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party he tried to get away with the same thing [35]. On the anti-Hindu Afd page, Hkelkar found proof to show the adjective was not only used by rightwing groups. Hornplease of course, did not concede the point, he reiterated his falsified beliefs here [36].
He also misrepresented WP:BLP for his own uses, surreptitiously leaving out the word "public" to try and further his argument [37]. I think he was perplexed by how much of a foundation I had built for my case that he [38] contradicted himself here] by saying "a coronation is a public ceremony". Since, its a public ceremony, JMS obviously identified with the Hindu ceremony of his ancestors. He has also violated BLP on Koenraad Elst on the indian nationalism page.
He has attacked Narendra Modi violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in the process. After being confronted by Nearly Headless Nick he tried to lie about sources that TerryJ-Ho misrepresented, [39] he proceeded to try to justify himself and accused me and hkelkar of being politically motivated [40] when Hornplease himself edits in a politically non-neutral fashion.
Accusations
After he put a POV sticker on Praveen Togadia I asked him to find sections he had issues with. He accused me of wanting to start a shouting match, he did a similar thing at Category talk:Hindu mathematicians here. He made bogus allegations of incivility here as well saying "I dont want to get into it" (dont be in it at all then.) He accused a good faith contributor (while posing as a third party) to convince the person you're in an edit war with accusing good faith Bondego (talk · contribs) of edit-warring. He accused me of being combatative and indicated his will to quit India-related articles together, because I had called him out on his lies and POV pushing. He also accused Hkelkar (falsely) of making false allegations about FOSA (an advocacy group) [41]. He also has the funny habits of accusing me of not reading things I put in [42][43] and supporting his incivil friend Zora (talk · contribs) who falsely accused me of "perpetrating massacre" and "separating the sheep from the goats".Bakaman Bakatalk 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism + POV-pushing

From Hornplease's general pattern of editing it is very clear that he sympathizes with the Congress Party and CPI(M), known as the secular parties. The cases below deal with how he has tried to whitewash criticism of these parties, and attack the opposition Hindu parties in India.

Hornplease has a pattern of vandalizing things unsupportive of his POV. On the Brinda Karat page, a well-referenced criticism section was unceremoniously vandalized by Hornplease (using popups as his tool of choice) [44]. If one looks at the page history, my well referenced were vandalized by users sympathetic to the Communists. He also subtlely tried to change the words to make the tone of the article less critical of Ms. Karat when she was sternly rebuked by the majority of sane people in India [45], [46]. Brinda Karat is a major figure in the Communist Party of India (Marxist), showing his motivations.
On an article I worked on for DYK, G.T. Nanavati, was affected by Hornplease's POV-pushing as well. He used an unreliable source Countercurrents describes themselves as a progressive/alternative site (meaning they are not mainstream and that they are partisan) to attack judge Nanavati. I removed the link per WP:BLP and requested him to discuss (albeit with some Bad humor) . He lies about countercurrents for his reply and claims to have a real citation that he cant cite [47] . Why should I wait for the supposed citation? WP:BLP and WP:RS says all defamatory information not cited by mainstream media should be removed so I did exactly that [48]. G.T. Nanavati and his commission the Nanavati Commission found members of the congress party responsible of the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots in which innocent Sikhs were butchered in the streets of New Delhi. Hornplease again had to attack the truth, and try and find fringe criticism of Nanavati.
On a related note see his whitewashing on Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar, Nanavati commission, etc.
Analysis

Many editors Freedom skies (talk · contribs), Hkelkar (talk · contribs), AMbroodEY (talk · contribs), Nidhishsinghal (talk · contribs) and Bharatveer (talk · contribs) have felt the wrath of Hornplease's actions. I have interacted with Hornplease for over 4 months, and it has not been productive. His constant self-righteousness and superiority complex wear down on the users he interacts with.

The "new" policy on tendentious edits states that DE "Campaign to drive away productive contributors". Well telling me to "live with it" or "find a fight you can win" shows he tried to coerce me to get out. As a wikipedian, I will not stand for narcissistic users telling me what to do [49][50][51] and his attempts to try and bully me backfired with him deciding there was no market for his POV on wikipedia.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I find it highly peculiar that this user "left" wikipedia but decided to come back for this arbcom. Perhaps he should see Wikipedia is not a battlegroundBakaman Bakatalk 21:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ikonoblast (talk · contribs) (formerly Holywarrior (talk · contribs)) engages in rampant harrassment

Well Ikonoblast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) & Holywarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (separate block logs need to be shown)

Trying to find examples of amazingly bad behavior on this user's part is like trying to find hay in a haystack.

  1. False Accusations of Sockpuppetry - He vandalized and harrassed Shashis because he thought shashi was a sock of hkelkar (which was proven false) [52][53][54][55][[56]
  2. Vandalism with bogus warnings - [57], [58],

[59]

  1. Personal Attacks - [60],[61]
  2. Incivility toward a third-party mediator - [62]
  3. Vandalism - [63], [64]
  4. He tried to bait Hkelkar while Hkelkar was a newbie [65], [66], [67], [68]
  5. Angry Ranting - [69]

[edit] Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) is a constructive editor

Look at New Pages I created within the last 30 days . Of those Ching-Thang Khomba, Garibniwaj and Kaka Joginder Singh have been DYK's.

I also have practically wrote the history of Manipur on Wikipedia (see List of Meitei kings, Category:Meitei royals all those articles barring Tikrendajit have been by me). As Antorjal (talk · contribs), Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs), P.K.Niyogi (talk · contribs), shmitra (talk · contribs), and Ragib (talk · contribs) can attest, I have also created a large amount of articles dealing with Category:Bengali renaissance and Category:Vangiya Sahitya Parishad, filling a void of info on 19th century Bengal history.

Also I have been active on WikiProject Hinduism (and assessment), WikiProject India (and assessment), WikiProject Bengal, WikiProject Bangladesh (and assessment), WikiProject West Bengal, and WikiProject Politics of India.

One can merely look at my creations to see I have 78 articles, 37 categories, one stub, one template, and even a userbox to my name. After searching wikipedia for three weeks after my last block (9/3 was the day of my last block I think) I created my first DYK. I have proceeded to make 8 more, and am in the process of nominating a couple as well.

The community encouraged me during hard times (especially Ragib (talk · contribs), Deepujoseph (talk · contribs), Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) and Bhadani (talk · contribs)) and they have rewarded me for it.

One can also see I've never been blocked for 3RR, and unlike the other participants, I took Shell Kinney's advice to heart (after my last block) and found better things to do. I find it unsavory that users that think wiki is a battleground harrass me for actions that I did as a wikinoob.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

[edit] To TwoHorned (talk · contribs)

Sadly Bharatveer and Hkelkar rarely interact, though I have worked with Bharatveer from time to time, and requested his input on things like Hindu Temples in Kerala, the Kerala School, Bindi, Tagore, etc.
I guess TwoHorned was so busy caught up in feeling important he forgot that I have not edited the Koenraad Elst page after we worked out a compromise during negotiations.[70],[71] and my response here.

I have not interacted with the user above since then. As for his other issue with my edit count, I wish to see what he shows for 5 months on the 'pedia as opposed to my 3.5 months in which I have over 60+ articles created, 20+ categories created, and 8 DYK's. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - There was no pattern, it was an isolated incident of laziness on my part. I should have responded to your whimsical nonsense in a numbered list though. I signed my edits on each line I edited.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Hornplease (talk · contribs)

Nothing to say, except his view is a fringe view, rejected by a majority of wikipedians I have interacted with. I have no anti-Islamic bias, as is stated by Ragib (talk · contribs) [72] and by my interactions with SameerKhan (talk · contribs) and Tarif Ezaz (talk · contribs).

Anyway there are a large number of users that disagree with Hornplease including (read the statements section): nids, AmbroodEY, Nobleeagle, Hkelkar, Shiva's Trident, and Dangerous-Boy.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I have never been warned for (except by a vandal) 3RR and never been blocked for edit-warring.
In response to a policy I have never heard of . I never "campaigned" for Hornplease to leave wiki, he's not my sockpuppet/meatpuppet meaning he did it out of his own accord. If one sees articles I wrote like Jagrup Brar, Pamheiba, Rana Bhagwandas, and Kaka Joginder Singh they would see these articles (usually barely bigger than stubs) have generally 6-8 references and all things that are not obvious are substantiated. Community input on the rfc against me was followed, I moved further and further from users who I deemed a waste of time.
In conclusion adding links to policy does not fool anyone, neither does trying to accuse me of "running you off wiki" (while you were gone I wrote 4 DYK's and at least 10 articles, so welcome back).Bakaman Bakatalk 19:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Also it was precisely at the request of Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs), Lostintherush (talk · contribs), Aksi_great (talk · contribs), Ragib (talk · contribs), and Deepujoseph (talk · contribs) that I started to move away from the POV infested quagmire and began to mark my stamp over large fields of articles like Category:Bengali renaissance, Category:Meitei royals, and the Category:Hinduism by country series. I listened to community input (not input from POV-pushing users), and have been rewarded by (newly promoted admins)Lost and Rama's Arrow for it. On this RFA itself Rama's Arrow stated I was a productive editor.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I also love "This was precisely what I personally had wanted to avoid (getting into an argument on the talkpage about something at a tangent to the article subject." - Why did he try to bring his misconceptions to the table?Bakaman Bakatalk 21:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have learned my lesson from my interactions with Hornplease. Never again, will I let myself be bossed around, bullied and insulted by a user who considers themself an intellectual.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also citing diffs made before WP:DE became policy as tendentious edits is incorrect because the policy did not exist. One cannot retroactively redefine a contributors contributions as tendentious using a misrepresentation of later policy. Hornplease's whole case is therefore invalidated because of this retroactive redefining. On a related note, I dont regard POV-pushers insulting me as "community input". The whole case below by Hornplease to drive contributors that stand up to his POV-pushing therefore falls apart. It should be no problem for ArbCom to see through the black veil by which he views wikipedia, and his knowing misuse of the veil to make misrepresentations [73] through which he makes judgementsBakaman Bakatalk 21:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Xiaopo (talk · contribs)

On the subject of revert happy, one may consult Crculver's block log (which includes many blocks for 3RR). If I was revert happy, why have I not been blocked for 3RR ever? Also, why have I not been blocked since the one-month span? Maybe its because I got over my past, and worked to build the encyclopedia unlike a large group of users whose only edits seem to have come on the arbcom page.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:BhaiSaab

[edit] Hkelkar is a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer

[edit] Context

I'd like to note that the reason I feel sockpuppetry is important here, even after Shiva's Trident has become inactive, is that because if it is true, then Hkelkar has been lying for about two months. This says something, then, of his other edits. I think I had quite a lot of evidence for this in my statement. I realize now that I wasn't supposed to do that, but I'll recap some of it here. As you can see from the sockpuppetry case linked in my statement, I have suspected Hkelkar of being a sockpuppet since his first day here, and as Blnguyen or Hkelkar can tell you, I have always believed that he is a sockpuppet. I believe it was the fault of several admins in refusing to acknowledge the obvious, and it took two entire months to finally ban one of the accounts, thanks to action taken by admin Dmcdevit and admin Aksi great. Admin Blnguyen, who has been involved with these "Indian" disputes for a signficant amount of time, did not believe Hkelkar was a sockpuppet until admin Aksi great showed him his own evidence towards the end of October or beginning of November.

[edit] Evidence of Sockpuppetry

Here is some information that I have not previously mentioned:

  1. Looking at the history of the talk page of (User_talk:Bakasuprman), it is clear that two users have consistently requested the help of Bakasuprman when they have found themselves to be in conflict with other users. In particular, I found the similarity between these two solicitations interesting: [74], [75].
  2. Both of their interactions with users such as User:Ikonoblast aka Holywarrior, myself, TerryJ-Ho, User:Haphar, and other editors have been quite similar as evidenced by the conversations taken place on each of the respective users talk pages.
  3. Both users have frequently use popups to revert the non-vandalistic edits of users that they are having content disputes with. See their contributions as this is commonly done by both of them.
  4. During their extended blocks, both users have typed "to-do" notes for themselves: [76] [77]. Although I have seen one or two editors do the same, this practice is not quite common.
  5. A quick overview of their contributions shows that Hkelkar has generally edited the very same or similar articles as Subhash bose.
  6. They have both used the logic of Venn diagrams in their arguments. See this sockpuppetry case and a discussion regarding myself on ANI.
  7. They show the same general attitude toward major religions and tend to make favorable edits for Hinduism and Judaism, while making negative edits for Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism, although there have been some exceptions. This is a general pattern in their editing that cannot be easily shown by one or two diffs.
  8. Both users exhibit a tendency to make the same specific typo when using conjunctions (e.g. "don't" is written as "don;t"). Some examples of these typos in their edit summaries include: [78], [79], [80], [81].

So now I'd like to recap some facts about this sockpuppetry, and for the sake of being non-repetitive, I'll omit the links that I have already provided above and in my statement:

  1. Shiva's Trident had previously used User:Pusyamitra_Sunga as a sockpuppet, the account of which was banned.
  2. Shiva's Trident's block began on August 21st. Hkelkar began editing on August 22nd during the other user's block. Pusyamitra Sunga also registered and began editing the day following one of Shiva's Trident's blocks.
  3. Shiva's Trident has previously edited from User:128.83.131.121 and User:128.83.131.215 during his blocks. On August 22nd, Hkelkar began editing from User:128.83.131.139.
  4. Per the University of Texas's website (linked in my statement), the computer or server that is on 128.83.131.139 is remotely accessible.
  5. Hkelkar's first edit (by IP) was on Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy, a controversial article which Shiva's Trident had worked on as well just up to a few days prior to the IP's edit. The second article that Hkelkar edited was 2002 Gujarat violence on August 23rd, 2006. Shiva's Trident had last edited this article on August 21st.
  6. User:128.83.131.215 was able to cite policy (using their shortcuts e.g. "WP:OR") from the very first day here. 128.83.131.215 issued his first warning to another user after less than three days on Wikipedia. This was done to User:Ikonoblast, who has had several heated discussions with Shiva's Trident in the past as evidenced by the talk page.
  7. They both attend the University of Texas and study Physics (obviously).
  8. Dmcdevit stated that shortly after the result of the checkuser he conducted in which he found that sockpuppetry was "likely" in this case, Shiva's Trident became increasingly inactive, and remains inactive till this day.
  9. All of this is apparent, in addition to admin aksi great's evidence (Hkelkar had the same username as Subhash bose as found on a yahoo group posting). I assume this evidence will be forwarded privately by Dmcdevit to the arbcom.

Finally, I'd like to note a conversation between myself and Hkelkar in which he seemed to have forgotten which account he used to make a specific edit. In the article, 2002 Gujarat Violence, we can see that Shiva's Trident inserted a source, Ramesh Rao's blog, on August 19th. On November 4th, Hkelkar and I are debating another source, Sabrang, and I choose to bring up his insertion of the blog. I state "Couldn't I say the same thing of your insertion of statements from Ramesh Rao's blog?..." Hkelkar responds on my talk page, and forgets that it was actually the account Shiva's Trident who inserted the material. He says "I think you misunderstand. I am using Ramesh Rao's writeup as a PRIMARY source after qualifying that it is HE who said it..." If you look at the contribution history of the article, you'll find that Hkelkar has actually never inserted or used additional material from Ramesh Rao, nor has he ever "qualified that it is HE [Rao] who said it..." in the article. Note further that I specifically used the word "insertion" to refer to Hkelkar's edits, to which he raised no objection at the time.

[edit] Hkelkar (and his other usernames) have been disruptive

I've decided to primarily dedicate this portion to Hkelkar's previous account, Shiva's Trident, as several other editors have already pointed out how Hkelkar has been disruptive with his new account. These are just a small selection of his many edits that contravene policy. Arbitrators should also note that Shiva's Trident was blocked all times except one under the username "Subhash bose" and the final time under "Shiva's Trident", so you'll only find one block if you look at the block log of "Shiva's Trident."

[edit] Shiva's Trident

Incivility and personal attacks:
Removing sourced material: [82], [83], [84],
Wild accusations of anti-Semitism or anti-Hinduism: [85] [86] His complaint against another user, Look at RSS...
In addition to the copyvio mentioned by Bakaman, he plagiarized here. I later caught the infringing paragraph, after which Shiva's Trident reinserted it and later reworded it.

[edit] Hkelkar

Hkelkar has also blatantly lied in several instances:

  • Regarding the Indian caste system, while I showed several reliable sources on the article's talk page (on November 17), he continued to say that I "used no sources at all"[87] or "cited no reliable sources"[88] (on November 19) while, as you can see, the quotes I provided were from sources like Britannica and Encyclopedia of Islam.
  • Attempted to fool an admin into getting me blocked here.

[edit] Responses to comments/evidence by other editors

Note: I have provided very little diffs in this section because the relevant pages have already been linked to by the parties to whom I am responding. When necessary, I have added links and/or diffs.

[edit] Response to Bakasuprman

This user has presented links for evidence but egregiously misrepresents them. I suggest the arbitrators take the time to read over the dialog we had over the copyvio material at Talk:Indian_caste_system#Vandalism in which Blnguyen established that I was correct about the text being a copyright violation. Bakasuprman in his reverts to reinsert the material probably assumed that I was lying about the copyvio and trying to blank the text defensively since I am a Muslim. As you can see on the talk page, Bakasuprman had said about my edit that I "used POV to delete the whole section on Muslim Caste System (He is a Muslim). I will copyedit and keep section due to this bias." He was later blocked per the clause on WP:Vand which states that repeatedly inserting copied text is vandalism. If you take the time to click through his links for his accusations of "cabals" etc., I think you'll find that they paint a different picture. Note that if you go through my contributions you'll find that I did not contribute a single edit to the RFC filed against Bakasuprman. You should further note that the mentioned ""Fundy Watch" friend" is none other than admin Tom Harrison. I'd like to say that in general I think Bakasuprman is sometimes a good editor, but he assumed bad faith of me in the "copyvio case" because of my religion, got in trouble for that, and still seems to be quite upset about it.

[edit] Response to CltFn

I would like the arbitrators to consider this user's neutrality in his comments about me, considering it was I that who established that this user had been using a sockpuppet for several months. I don't think I need to defend myself against any individual allegations from this user since no evidence has yet been provided.

[edit] Response to Hkelkar

This is a response to these accusations. The numbers of each response corresponds with the number of the accusation

  1. Comment's regarding anti-Semitism are below. I'm sure Blnguyen now realizes that Hkelkar is not Jewish.
  2. Shiva's Trident was blocked indefinitely a few days later - hardly a "dead horse."
  3. I have continuously accused Hkelkar of being a sockpuppet since his first day here. I stand by my actions, especially now that Shiva's Trident is indefinitely blocked.
  4. A discussion regarding the edits on Indian caste system took place here. Hkelkar is currently using the text of a fatwa to say that the fatwas established a caste system among Muslims in India, despite me showing three sources that contradict this. He has provided no other evidence of the impact of the fatwa other than the text of the fatwa itself. I encourage you to read the discussion on the talk page and evaluate who's misrepresenting what.
  5. See 4.
  6. See 4.
  7. See 4.
  8. No comment.
  9. Hkelkar fails to understand that I have, by default, always assumed bad faith of him. Why? Because sockpuppetry and lying, which he continues to do in this very arbcom case, are indicative of bad faith. It was the fault of the admins in failing to recognize the sockpuppetry for two months. I have only taken some of his edits in good faith when they were apparent in not showing bad faith.
  10. Hkelkar(under Shiva's Trident name) and Baksuprman took offense at the "in addition to maintaining offensive activities" clause in the RSS article. This was explicitly stated in the journal source that I used, the Far Eastern Survey, but for whatever reason they wished to censor the clause. This was disruptive both on the parts of Hkelkar and Bakasuprman.
  11. This is a repeat of number 8.
  12. Regarding Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations, those edits were in fact supported by a consensus formed on the talk page of CAIR (here and here). CltFn was the exception to the consensus, and therefore wanted to ignore it by merging the criticism with the original article.
  13. Regarding Craig Winn, I don't think I need to justify removing an enormous list of links within the text of an article. When it comes to him being self-published, see Mr. Darcy's statement on the talk page of the article.

[edit] Allegations of anti-Semitism

I have a strong dislike for Israel, and am not inclined to hide my feelings on the activities of that country. Its oppression of Palestinian civilians disgusts me. However, I have no hatred for Jews, and love Jews that equally dislike Israel, as I've stated several times. Hkelkar is in fact a Hindu, as you can see from the userboxes on the past revisions of User:Shiva's Trident user page. When I was making the "Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place" and other statements, Blnguyen at the time refused to acknowledge that Hkelkar was a sockpuppet, and he blocked me because he perceived my statements to be directed at a Jewish user. I knew however that my statements were being pasted on the talk page of a Hindu, and I didn't find anything inherently wrong with them. Had Blnguyen known that Hkelkar and Shiva's Trident were the same person as he acknowledges now, I don't feel that I would have been blocked. On the ANI discussion regarding this indcident, several users had commented that Hkelkar's statements were equally provocative, but for whatever reason, Blnguyen took no action against Hkelkar at the time.

Hkelkar's response below seems to be reading into my statements a little too much. "Leeching" is a general negative term - I would use the term against anything I dislike and Israel or Jews certainly do not hold any particular claim to the word as used by anti-Semites. When I said "Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place" I mean the state, as I am aware that there have been tribes of Jews living in the area for quite a long time even before the existence of the current state of Israel. Hkelkar is making his own inference here to imply that I mean "the people of Israel" shouldn't be on the map. One can read into my statements as much as they like - that doesn't mean their interpretations will be correct. So let me clarify my position here with some oversimplified logic: If you happen to support Israel's actions against Palestinians, I don't particularly like you. If you happen to be Jewish and you criticize Israel (as many Jews within Israel do), I like you. If you happen to be Jewish, and you support what Israel does to Palestinians, I don't like you. If you happen to be a Muslim and you support those actions of Israel, I don't like you the same.
Apparently you like me, but saying Israel should not be on the map was quite provocative. Fred Bauder 22:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Hkelkar

[edit] Response to accusations of sockpuppetry

I've already gone over this matter in the RFCU filed against me here. However, I will summarize my points and add some more.

  • Statement made above

"Looking at the history of the talk page of (User_talk:Bakasuprman), it is clear that two users have consistently requested the help of Bakasuprman when they have found themselves to be in conflict with other users. In particular, I found the similarity between these two solicitations interesting: [89], [90]"

My response:The similarity is circumstantial at best.Actually, I never denied that I knew Trident and that we converse(d) frequently off wikipedia about wikipedia articles. He was not doing so well with trying to clear them of bias and that's when I stepped in to help.I solicited Bakaman's help on the recommendation of Trident.

  • Statement made above

"Both of their interactions with users such as User:Ikonoblast aka Holywarrior, myself, TerryJ-Ho, User:Haphar, and other editors have been quite similar as evidenced by the conversations taken place on each of the respective users talk pages"

My response:I have barely interacted with this User:Haphar (I may have corresponded with him months ago, but not since then). I do observe, that Trident and haphar have had considerable arguments.Of course, Ikonoblast and TerryJ-Ho are pattern disruptors who run around India related articles and fill them with nonsense. I only clean up after them. I will post my evidence concerning this below.

  • Statement made above

"Both users have frequently use popups to revert the non-vandalistic edits of users that they are having content disputes with. See their contributions as this is commonly done by both of them."

My response: A bad practice that I stopped after I learned that you were not supposed to use popups except for vandalism

  • Statements made above

"During their extended blocks, both users have typed "to-do" notes for themselves: [91] [92]. Although I have seen one or two editors do the same, this practice is not quite common."

My response:Like BhaiSaab said, several editors do this, including trident. I saw him do it, thought it was a rather neat idea, and adopted it myself.

  • Statement made above

"A quick overview of their contributions shows that Hkelkar has generally edited the very same or similar articles as Subhash bose."

My response: Like I said, this is the case because Trident intimated to me that these articles were in bad shape and I tried to improve them.

  • Statement made above:

"They have both used the logic of Venn diagrams in their arguments."

My response:This is the best BhaiSaab can do? We both use Venn Diagrams so we must be the same person???Both Ariel Sharon and I breathe oxygen. Are we the same person? Both Steven Weinberg and I use Venn Diagrams to present our arguments (attend his cosmology class at UT Austin sometime). We even go to the same department and University.Are Stephen Weinberg and I the same person? I urge the admins to see the obvious, that BhaiSaab clearly has no case and is trying to prejudice you with circumstantial events.

  • Statement made above

"They show the same general attitude toward major religions and tend to make favorable edits for Hinduism and Judaism, while making negative edits for Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism, although there have been some exceptions. This is a general pattern in their editing that cannot be easily shown by one or two diffs"

My response:Like I said, all this establishes is that we have similar points of view, which I never denied.Besides, I would not characterize my edits as "negative for Islam". That is really the reason why BhaiSaab is carrying out his little crusade.He's angry that I wrote about some dirty littel secrets among Muslims, like the Muslim Castes, which he tried to whitewash and instigated an edit-war there (I'll post more diffs about this later). He plans to get me banned and delete that section once the article get's unprotected. Such practices are quite common for him and can be seen from his contribs.

  • Statement made above

"Shiva's Trident had previously used User:Pusyamitra_Sunga as a sockpuppet, the account of which was banned."

My response:I do not know anything about this matter.

  • Statement made above

"Shiva's Trident's block began on August 21st. Hkelkar began editing on August 22nd."

My response:Because Trident told me to.

  • Statements made above

"They both attend the University of Texas and study Physics (obviously)."

My response: A fact that I have never denied.

  • Statements made above

"Dmcdevit stated that shortly after the result of the checkuser he conducted in which he found that sockpuppetry was "likely" in this case, Shiva's Trident became increasingly inactive, and remains inactive till this day"

My response: I told him to steer clear of wikipedia for a while as he was increasingly getting busy and I less so. He is a theorist and I an experimentalist. Theory people do little work during the summer and mostly work in the long sessions (that's now). I worked a lot in the summer on my experiment, which gave results and I wrote my paper.I now have some time to edit and he doesn't (though I will get busy with the next phase of my work soon). Nonetheless, he wanted to do some editing but I told him to keep off and intimate any interesting articles he saw to me.

I would like to point out that I raised these issues earlier in the RFCU discussion page (which I link here). I will quote from there now:

Link:Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar

“ I am fairly certain that the "cross-linking" shows edits made by us from separate home ips and univ ips. I had already stated in the previous RFCU that we (bose and I) knew each other and frequently used our PC's at home and on campus. In order to avoid meatpuppetry, we have generally stayed away from each other's edits since the last RFCU (I was new to wikipedia and got a login on bose's insistence & did not know about sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry back then), plus I believe bose is busy on account of his impending core courses (mine ended earlier).If we are banned on the basis of this evidence, then it means that any PIO user who belongs to UT who has a login on wikipedia should be banned.Again, I urge admins to consider the motives of ikonoblast, the complainant, given his tendentious editing and frequent use of intimidation tactics against several users (listed in this RFCU as well as others).Thank you and have a nice day. ”
“

Upon the advice of shiva's Trident, I went to #wikipedia-en channel on irc where User:Dmcdevit was also logged in. He has clarified that the conclusion of "Likelihood" was on the basis of technical evidence only and without considering the history. I have a log of the session posted here (for the sake of privacy, I have only kept logs of my conversation with Dmcdevit who has given me permission to publish it; all other conversations have been deleted)

The history is that the reason why our ip ranges are the same is because we have a common isp (roadrunner) which is the dominant isp in the Austin area and almost everybody uses it in Central Austin, where we both live on account of it's proximity to the Department where we both go.

During the summer semester I was mainly in the lab owing to a research backlog and Trident was mainly at home as he is a theorist and theorists can work from home only. This is the reason why my edits were from a University machine and his edits were from a home ip.

Now that the fall semester has started, Trident has classes and stuff to go to and assignments (I presume) to work on (for which he presumably needs to be in library all day) so he is at the department and makes his edits from there. I just finished my paper and sent it for publication so I presently have a lull in my work and can thus stay at home more and so my edits are from my home ip which has the same domain as Trident's home ip because, as I said, we use the same popular isp (Roadrunner) and so looks similar. This explains the "switching of the ips" that dmcdevit was talking about in the irc chat session posted above.Thus, the technical evidence that points to likelihood has a perfectly innocent explanation once you consider the history and the circumstances.

 ”

I would also like for you to look at admin User:Blnguyen's assessment here

and the assessments of User:Dbachmann here Now look at BhaiSaab's response [93], clearly indicating that he is getting increasingly desperate to sway opinions against me. This puts his objectivity in question.

and that of User:Ben W Bell (in a conversation with User:Ikonoblast) here

  • Statement made above:

"Both users exhibit a tendency to make the same specific typo when using conjuctions (e.g. don't is written as "don;t"). Some examples of these typos in their edit summaries include"

My response:An interesting observation.Such typos are not uncommon to many posters on the internet (see any number of slashdot posts where such typos occur routinely, I guess nearly half of them must be my sockpuppets).If you look at your standard QWERTY keyboard (not the DVORAK keybpard), you will see that the apostrophe key and the semicolon key are side by side. OTher common typos that Trident and I (and a hundred million users on the internet) have in common is typing "teh" instead of "the" (see Internet Slang). Let's ban them all from wikipedia, praise G-d. Or how about you don;t whoops don't?

Hkelkar 06:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Statement made above

"Finally, I'd like to note a conversation between myself and Hkelkar in which he seemed to have forgotten which account he used to make a specific edit. In the article, 2002 Gujarat Violence, we can see that Shiva's Trident inserted a source, Ramesh Rao's blog, on August 19th. On November 4th, Hkelkar and I are debating another source, Sabrang, and I choose to bring up his insertion of the blog. I state "Couldn't I say the same thing of your insertion of statements from Ramesh Rao's blog?..." Hkelkar responds on my talk page, and forgets that it was actually the account Shiva's Trident who inserted the material. He says "I think you misunderstand. I am using Ramesh Rao's writeup as a PRIMARY source after qualifying that it is HE who said it..." If you look at the contribution history of the article, you'll find that Hkelkar has actually never inserted or used additional material from Ramesh Rao, nor has he ever "qualified that it is HE [Rao] who said it..." in the article. Nowhere in his response to me does Hkelkar state "I did not insert the blog; Shiva's Trident did."

My response:Carefully look at my statement. I said "I am USING the blog" i.e. as part of my argument after Trident put it there and I read it.Did I say that I cited the blog? I did not, Trident did. Why is it necessary for me to mention who put it there first? I am certainly not required to qualify the edit history of every edit made to an article during my discussion. Again, another lame attempt by Bhaisaab to deliberately skew circumstantial incidents. Anybody can do that against anybody. If I was actually Trident, and I goofed up my "nefarious scheme", I would have said "I cited the blog" but I didn't did I? Of course, the truly paranoid can use a double-double deception argument, but I am working on the good faith assumption that Arbcomm isn't populated by tinfoil hat wearing 10 year olds.

Conclusion:Most of this so-called evidence is circumstantial. I have explained why the technical information in the checkuser case was misleading, and the fact that we hail from the same school. have similar backgrounds and often discuss wikipedia matters with each other, which is why I advised him to step back for a while so that nobody can say we're "meatpuppets" or whatever. I have also demonstrated BhaiSaab's real reasons for this RFCU (so that he may have free run to whitewash articles on Muslims). Finally, there have been no edits from Trident in months, which makes the sockpuppetry charge moot. I point you to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets where it says:

“ cases of sockpuppetry older than one week are useless.If the problem is not current, just watch the user and report when you see a new instance of abuse ”

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Trident is my sockpuppet, there has been little or no activity on that account for months (see contribs), and his last edit to an article appears to be [94] on September 3, 2.5 months ago (he's indefblocked now, but that happened on 29th october, 2 weeks ago [95] thanks to Dcmdevit's biased conclusion made largely in bad faith and with extreme malice on his part, for which I opine that he should be summarily desysopped, but I will raise that matter at another time).Therefore, assuming that we are sockpuppets, there have been no abuse, block evasion or any impropriety in months. The policy statement above clearly indicates that there is a precept of reasonable statute in wikipedia policy which is surely less than two months. Since, in the absense of abuse or block/ban evasion, sockpuppetry isn;t illegal, then the issue is moot. This matter has nothing to do with sockpuppetry at all, but is a personal crusade against me by BhaiSaab, who has been misrepresenting sources and whitewashing many article for months before Trident noticed it and showed it to me.I will add evidence on that soon.I should add that BhaiSaab's desperation at smearing me, even to the point of rehashing old accusations of sockpuppetry, should tell you something about HIS edits, particularly Talk:Indian caste system, which arbcomm should peruse carefully.Hkelkar 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:BhaiSaab has been a disruptive user

Note, I will elaborate more on these diffs:

  1. His anti-semitic trolling has already been mentioned (here is admin User:Blnguyen's assessment)[96]
  2. Needling and harrassment.flogging a dead horse:[97]
  3. Warnings to BhaiSaab by admins to cease and desist in his actions:[98][99]
  4. POV war in Indian Caste System that got the article protected:(He started the revert-war through misrepresentation of sources and I tried to correct his misrepresentations)[100][101][102][103].Rapid-succession revert-warring despite the fact that my edits are well-sourced and his are not.
  5. Constant bogus arguments and refuting of well-sourced refs on Talk:Indian caste system, ethnic baiting:[104](from his point of view, he still thinks I am a Hindu because of my Maharashtrian name "Kelkar")
  6. Obstinately arguing against quoted and sourced edits:[105]
  7. Whitewashing the obvious:[106]
  8. POV war in Bajrang Dal started by him[107][108]
  9. Assumption of bad faith:[109]
  10. POV warring on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh:[110][111][112][113][114]Following which the article got protected
  11. Edit-warring on Bajrang Dal[115][116],Also got protected
  12. POV warring not restricted to me alone:Warring on Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations[117][118][119][120]
  13. POV warring on Craig Winn[121][122][123]
If you check the dates of the diffs, it is coear that all of these edit wars were started by him.Hkelkar 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:BhaiSaab has expressed anti-semitic views

Well I was going to post diffs showcasing his anti-semitism, and I will, for the sake of propriety.This post is in response to his statement above concerning his "love for Jews" and distinction with "hate for Medinat Yisrael".Of course, being critical of Israel does not make anybody an anti-semite. If you red op/eds from Haaretz or Jpost, you will see plenty of criticism of Israel there only.However, BhaiSaab clearly made statements against me, a Jew, supporting a holocaust denier (whose name I refuse to type, but he is the current president of Iran, you know whom I mean)[124] and saying that "Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place"[125] and "Israel wins only because it leeches off of the US" [126]. Now, the reason why these statements are anti-semitic (and not just "critical of Israel") are as follows:

  1. The phrase "leeches" was traditionally used by anti-semites to characterize Jews as a people. The vast literature of anti-semitism clearly shows that Jews were compared to various forms of parasitic life forms throughout the ages by anti-semites.Thus, saying that Israel (with a majority Jewish population) "leeches" (verb form) is indicative of the anti-semitic stereotype that "Jews are leeches", making the sentence an anti-semitic one.
  2. It is one thing to constructively criticize Israel. It is another to demand it's destruction. Medinat Israel is s sovereign nation, recognized by all the civilized world as a state with every right to exist. It also has a Jewish Majority with a Jewish Majority government that represents a Jewish majority people and an Arab minority people also. Israel also has among the largest number of Jews in the world. Thus, demanding that "Israel be wiped off the map" is a demand that actions be taken to the end of eliminating the state and it's people. Thus, it demands the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide of the Jewish population. The resultant death toll would clearly be greater than that of the Shoah (the most anti-semitic act in history), making his statement irreconcilably anti-semitic.
  3. Regarding his claims of "loving Jews who oppose Israel", I'm sure that everybody realizes that such Jewish groups are a vanishingly small fringe minority who have committed such acts of mishegas against Israel. Naturally, most anti-semites would side with groups that commit such a chilul hashem to try to present themselves as non anti-semites. However, it is clear that siding with such fringe minorities (in on itself not necessarily an anti-semitic thing), coupled together with demands of Israel's destruction, makes his position an anti-semitic one. Hkelkar 08:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
In pre-WWII Europe, Zionists WERE the minority. On the one side, you had the Orthodox Jews who believed that it was up to G-d, not man, to restore Israel, and on the other side, the Jewish Labor Bund, who wanted socialist Jewish solidarity in Europe. Only the tragedy of the Holocaust destroyed many of the anti-Zionists and convinced some of the others to adopt Zionist sentiments. Hkelkar seems woefully ignorant of Jewish history; not only that, it's very strange to hear a purported part-Baghdadi Jew raised in Mumbai using Yiddish. Zora 01:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Using an Eastern European language in Mumbai does seems very strange, but not many people know about the Three Oaths or that Ultra-Orthodoxy was near wiped out because they refused to flee, not even Jews. I'm willing to bet even most Israelis don't know that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The Yiddishisms were a half-serious identification mechanism, since most Jews in America are Ashkenazim (I'm not an Ashkenazy, obviously...), and I am in America only.Is it correct to say Yiddish is "Eastern European"? It is descended from middle High German, which makes it more Central European (but it probly has a lot of Slavic influences). Hkelkar 11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a resurgence in Orthodox Judaism in Israel that is overwhelmingly pro-Zionism. The Orthodox anti-Zionist Jews are a minority right now.Hkelkar 11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides, the Bnei menashe who have officially converted are all Zionists[127][128], the Bene Israel are all Zionist, and the Baghdadi Jews are also Zionist[129].Hkelkar 11:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides, my take on the anti-Zionist old orthodoxy is that they were that way largely out of antipathy towards the "left-wing" character of Zionism (Zionism started out as a left wing movement), and their overtly literalist interpretation of scripture was an excuse. Political Zionism was a response to antisemitism in Europe. Of course, the Zionism of Indian Jews is not leftist, because there has been no serious antisemitism in India, but Indian Jewish Zionism has the religious dimension.Hkelkar 11:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you Hkelkar, but that attitude changed after the main proponents of anti-Zionism were wiped out in the Holocaust. As for Yiddish, according its article, "It originated in the Ashkenazi culture that developed from about the 10th century in central and eastern Europe". So we're both right. I guess we'd better stop this conversation now, as this is hardly the page be discussing the niceties of the history of Zionism. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TerryJ-Ho has been a disruptive user

Note: I will elaborate on these diffs in a few days:

  1. incivil (and deliberately false) edit summaries:[130]
  2. Hypocrisy:He accuses me of using "Anti-X, Anti-Y", but he himself uses the term anti-Muslim liberally, even to the point of violating WP:BLP against Daniel Pipes.Irrelevant BLP against Pipes: [131]Again:[132].That's three times, in case anyone's counting
  3. More BLP violation on Narendra Modi, using poorly sourced statements to defame personality:[133][134]
  4. Paranoid accusations of "fascist right wing blah blah":[135][136]
  5. Tried to instigate a witch Hunt by filing a medcab, which got resoundly denied:Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-18_Edits_by_Netaji_and_Bakaspuprman_on_India_related_pages
  6. Evoking a commonly false argument to whitewash antisemitism:[137](TerryJ-HO's not stupid, he is aa very smart man who clearly knew the fallacy of this argument and used it merely to provoke me)
  7. Could be ignorance, could be baiting, you decide.Removing sourced edit:[138]
  8. Repeated Bad Faith Assumptions:[139][140]
  9. Bad faith AfD (overwhelmingly condemned as such)[141], already discussed by NobleEagle
  10. Spamming talk pages of unrelated aritcles with disputes from other articles to try to form coteries of Guild meatpuppets:[142]
  11. Further Spamming of talk pages with material that is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, also baiting:[143]
  12. Falsified/misleading statements with a clear intent of ethnic baiting:[144]
  13. Whitewashing topics without providing any sources. He did this to the point of blanking entire sections,vandalism as well:[145][146][147]
  14. Again, labeling of users and ethnic baiting on Muslim Guild page to invite mass-reverters etc:[148]

Concerning TerryJ-Ho's obsession with my Jewishness, he has routinely attacked my Jewishness [149][150][151] and has constantly harassed me about it [152]. He has been repeatedly incivil to me [153] and been warned by an admin to desist this line of harassment [154].

Conclusion: Overall, TerryJ-Ho has been better behaved than BhaiSaab.My only fault is falling for his baiting attempts a couple of times. Also, his abrasive brand of English, (full of deliberate bad grammar and aggressive and disrespectful perorations) got to me a couple of times. My fault there too. That's a cultural thing that comes with the baggage of being Indian.It is clear, however, that he, together with BhaiSaab, routinely engage in various forms of ethnic baiting, labeling of users, incivility, and POV against specific ethno-religious groups.Hkelkar 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to TerryJ-Ho

I know nothing about this "Pussyamitra Sunga" business and will not comment on TerryJ-Ho's obviously circumstantial case.Take this matter up with Trident. As for my views. Well, I never claimed I was a leftie.Hkelkar 17:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian, an established leftist bias, appropriately criticized by Varsha Bhonsle here, attributed accordingly. Partisan sources must be attributed.Hkelkar 05:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The "one big penis" comment was in extremely bad taste, I admit (I got blocked for it and I apologized). However, claiming that the Jama Masjid (a Muslim architectural masterpeice) is better looking than the Qutb Minar is hardly "Hindutva". Many Muslims would agree that the tomb of some guy is less important than a holy Mosque dedicated to the worship of "Allah". TerryJ-Ho's clearly getting desperate here.Hkelkar 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Qutb Minar is the minaret of Quwwatul Islam mosque complex and also dedicated to the worship of "Allah" and predates Jama Masjid by some centuries,.Another indication that you edit on the basis of your convictions rather than facts..MerryJ-Ho 10:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Er that's just ONE theory about it's purpose. read Qutub Minar. It has been advanced that it could be no more than a simple watchtower, with no religious or artistic significance. The Jama masjid clearly has a religious significance (it's a masjid after all) and is a better example of the influence of Islam in India. Prof that TerryJ-Ho will resort to any number of distortions to advance his hatemongering agenda.Hkelkar 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that does not depreciate the importance of a structural element part of a mosque complex...at least I stand a third of chance being right in the light of that article quoted above by Kelkar than Kelkar's such assertions as "tomb of some guy" or an inverted "Penis" Many architectural experts will disagree to Kelkar's analysis of no religious or "artistic significance" - I will not cite the sources as Kelkar ends up wasting editor's time clarifying mundane and obvious issues.Such dead suredness on a very subjective issue as "the best example of an architecture type" does not lead to a meaningful article writing but is disruptive.MerryJ-Ho 23:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Newer response to TerryJ-Ho:

*Shiva's Trident has recieved numerous last warnings and HKelkar himself has recieved them in abundance.If it is established that both are the same person , that is aggravating.As this is not a live audience where the two persons can be called separately, I believe due weightage will be accorded to the circumstantial evidence which is quite strong in this case.

Yeah, that's how the Dreyfuss Affair went down. Nice, huh?

Sammihit Bharat! Raise your guns and fight for the Hindu way of life! The user page - the comments are worth reading RSS is a volunteer organization that aims to speak for the global minority of Hindus who are the victims of apartheid in their own homeland from the Islamofascist-sympathetic UPA government, pseudosecular anti-Hindu cabals and terror-propagandists. They are no different from the Jewish B'Nai B'rith. Only anti-hindus choose to paint them as a parochial and communal organization. None of them have any facts, only polemical attacks. Political Posturing in favour of Hindutva parties - notice evoking similarities with Jewish organisations the only things edited are POV statements made by the Liberal Left If you want to tout the latte-drinking elitist secular fundamentalism of the Liberal Left academia without even following wikipedia.. There is no shortage of hindu-haters among white scholars, or their pinko moonbat lackeys in India. The standard Desi moonbat politburo propaganda really.

I have already discussed these matters in the RFCU against me (posted in the ArbComm root page) so I will merely summarize my points:
  1. All this establishes that we know each other, have similar views, go to the same school and engaged in meatpuppetry months ago.
  2. Regardless of whether the ArbComms decision in this particular matter, surely there is a reasonable precept of statute here. If we hypothetically assume that we are the same person, then any block/ban evasion was months ago, since Trident has not edited since then.
  3. BhaiSaab opines that, if ArbComm decides that socking has been afoot, then, it means that I have been lying. Hypothetically, if that is the case then so what? Is there a WP:No Liars policy? If you have issues with my edits and/or sources then, by all means, discuss them. If you can establish errors or falsehoods beyond a reasonable doubt then good (they've mostly failed, the couple of cases where there have been issues, and mostly resolved ones too, have been blown out of proportion in the ArbComm, deliberately so in order to get me banned so that they can merrily delete the edits and replace them with biased content).Rehashing this months old sockpuppetry case is clearly an attempt to deflect from the real issue at hand, which is that all of my article edits that presently stand are sourced, attributed appropriately and neutral in narrative, and they neutralize the biases and prejudices of BhaiSaab, Terry, Hornplease, TwoHorned, Ikonoblast and the unfortunate souls whom they have brainwashed into their defense here. Hkelkar 09:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TerryJ-Ho expresses a deep seated hatred and prejudice against Hindus

  1. Perpetrators of Godhra Train Burning are innocent and Indian Army are all traitors [155][156]

but reaction riots in Gujarat were perpetrated by "evil Hindoos" (see his comments below)

  1. He uses the declaration of Narendra Modi (a man Muslims hate)[157] to justify violence against Hindus.
  2. Muslims are justified in attacking Hindus as a "sponteneous reaction"[158]. All this is common Lashkar-e-Toiba and Students Islamic Movement of India rhetoric.
  3. Ridicules verifiable claims of brutal atrocities against Hindus by Islamic Fundamentalists (see Persecution of Hindus)[159]
  4. Disparaging Hindu beliefs (he should have criticized in a scholarly way, but his tone is mocking, like the tone of an Islamic Fundamentalist)[160] Hkelkar 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Here [161] he says I should "thank Aurangzeb" and that historians "don't say that there was any persecution"[162].This is a blatant lie (Richards, John F. (1995). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 130,177:"Jujhar Singh's outright defiance of this order inflamed Shah Jahan. He sent another large army under the nominal command of the sixteen-year-old Prince Aurangzeb to invade Bundelkhand....When overtaken by Mughal troops, Jujhar Singh's principal queens were killed by their attendants, but the remaining royal women were sent to join the Mughal harem. Two very young sons and a grandson were converted to Islam. Another older son who refused to convert was killed outright.""In many disputed successions for hereditary local office Aurangzeb chose candidates who had converted to Islam over their rivals. Pargana headmen and quangos or recordkeepers were targeted especially for pressure to convert. The message was very clear for all concerned. Shared political community must also be shared religious belief").This is highly offensive remark to Hindus and Sikhs (Bear in mind that TerryJ-Ho thinks that I am a Hindu) because Aurangzeb the Islamic emperor was responsible for the demolition of temples, imposition of Jizya, enforcement of Islamic Law forced conversions to Islam, and other atrocities on the Sikh people (see the rest of the wikipedia article and this). Note that the article is protected because pakistani Nationalists want him portrayed as a "great hero" like TerryJ-Ho just did.
  6. Here, he says that people are "doing PR for the Gujarat government, narendra Modi etc.... disgusting"[163]. Gujarat government under Narendra Modi is the duly elected government, put there by a free electorate. His disrespect for that process indicates a disrespect for that process, and inherently derogatory to the voters of the region. He then has the cheek to accuse me (see diff of his post below) of criticizing Jinnah. Too boot, he misrepresents my comments as usual. I said (he does not cite this, showing his tendency to lie)"very few Hindus supported partition and wanted to coexist with Muslims", which is a true statement. I continued that Jinnah orchestrated Direct Action Day, together with Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, which led to massive atrocities against Hindus in the region perpetrated under Jinnah's direction. Despite that, many moderate Muslims chose to remain in India. Only the extremist Muslims, brainwashed by Jinnah's paranoia about "Evil Kaffeer Hindoos", decided to become al-Mojahirs in Pakistan. TerryJ-Ho's shows a clear fetish for paranoid Islamofascist mass murderers, but lashes out at Hindu leaders like Modi who have not done anything even REMOTELY approaching the atrocities of the Noakhali Massacre or the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, both at the behest of Pakistan. Hkelkar 11:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TerryJ-Ho supports Islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism

Will submit evidence here

[edit] User:TerryJ-Ho deliberately misrepresents sources

  1. Here, he cited a partisan group as "independent media" (fixed by me)[164]
  2. Same again (sabrang is a partisan Muslim-run lobby group that glorifies Islamic terrorism) [165]

[edit] User:TerryJ-Ho uses wikipedia as a soapbox for expressing partisan views

  1. Here, makes political statements against Hindutva in an article about riots[166].
  2. Here, he calls allegations of media bias as "ope/eds by Hindu commentators", despite the fact that the religion of the parties are not all established [167]
  3. [168] - He cites another partisan opinion (defense council of the victims) with very subtle POV wording.

[edit] User:TerryJ-Ho engages in trollish behaviour

  1. "Lies lies spread by Hindutvaadis" irrelevant commentary in the talk page of an unrelated article.
  2. Yelling (capital case edit summary) that a source is "not NPOV"[169], despite the fact that the link, though to a partisan website, is an exact archive of a news article from an NPOV and reliable Source here. Ordinarily, this would not be all right, but his immediate asppersion to the edit (instead of discussion in talk page etc.) is an indication of his trollery here.
  3. Again, well-poisoning and trollery on Talk:2002 Gujarat violence, soapboxing against an incident that did not happen in the period of the article subject (not in 2002, and non-violent to boot) [170]

[edit] Some background material

Regarding point #1 above, TerryJ-Ho says below that his screed is relevant because he assigns me a "Hindoo liar" motive, alleging that it is the product of "Kaffir Hindoo historical revisionism". However, the refs I used in that article are shown below:
  1. Sharma, H.D (January 16, 1991). The Real Tipu (in English). Rishi Publications, Varanasi.Sharma is an established and accredited scholar at BHU University in India, one of the top ten schools in the country
  2. Lewis Rice Mysore and Coorg (a Gazetteer) Vol I Bangalore 1878
  3. Meersman, Achilles [1972]. Annual reports of the Portuguese Franciscans in India, 1713-1833 p238. Centro de Estudos Históricos Ultramarinos.
  4. George M. Moraes "Muslim Rules of Mysore and their Christian subjects" in Irfan Habib (Ed.) Confronting Colonialism. Resistance and modernisation under Haidar Ali & Tipu Sultan Indian History Congress (Delhi: Tulika) 1999 p135
  5. Kareem, C.K [1973] (1973). Kerala Under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan P187. Kerala History Association : distributors, Paico Pub. House, 322. (This guy Kareem is a Muslim btw)
  6. Lee-Warner, William [1894]. “3”, The Protected Princes of India. Macmillan and Co..
  7. Rao, Hayavadana C.. History of Mysore 1399-1799: Incorporating the latest Epigraphical, Literary and Historical Researches Vol. 3 pgs 1047-53. Bangalore Government Press.Historian Hayavadana C. Rao has written the most encyclopedic work on Mysore history to date.

So, Kareem, Sharma and Rao are all "Hindutvaadis" according to TerryJ-Ho. This should demonstrate his true intentions, which are to color any perspective not in line with Islamist intolerance and Islamist historical revisionism as "Kaffir Hindoo lies". While some of the older British sources may have a partisan bias, the claims to that effect are presently edited in teh article (works by Irfan Habib, Kate Brittlebank and such), so no partisan bias there.

See the articles below for the truth about historical revisionism in Pakistani schools and the denial of history, painting the mass atrocities of many Muslim rulers as "Kaffir Hindoo propaganda" and portraying them as heroes:

  1. School Books That Teach Children To Hate- in Pakistan:

Muslims alone have the right to rule the world and are allowed to kill infidels that stand in the way of Islam. This is the message being taught to schoolchildren through textbooks used in the network of institutions run by Jamaat ud-Daawa, according to a research report on Hate Speech complied by the Liberal Forum Pakistan. "Infidels are cowards by nature," claims the Urdu textbook used in the second grade (for seven-year-olds). "When a holy warrior attacks them, they scream with terror and fear." Mujahideen are glorified as the alpha male on a mission from God. They are the superheroes that kill Hindus, fashion all sorts of gadgets from found material, and make the infidel world cower in fear.

  1. Pakistani social studies textbooks creating havoc:

An alumnus of the University of Texas at Austin, Rosser is a South Asia expert with special interest in the educational structure in India and its tangential impact on the curriculum in the U.S. To legitimise Pakistan as a Muslim homeland, "historians had to nurture the image of the Muslims as a monolithic entity, acting in unison and committed specifically to Islamic values and norms", she says. "In the past few decades," she says, "social studies textbooks in Pakistan have been used as locations to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy makers have attempted to inculcate towards their Hindu neighbours.

  1. The subtle subversion in Pakistan:

scholars A M Nayyar and Ahmed Salim laboriously went through Pakistani textbooks in Social Studies, English, Urdu and Civic Studies prescribed for children studying from class I to XII and have come the conclusion 'that for over two decades the curricula and the officially mandated textbooks in these subjects have contained material that is directly contrary to the goals and values of a progressive, moderate and democratic Pakistan'.According to Nayyar and Salim the Pakistani textbooks narrated history 'with distortions and omissions'. They found:

Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history.

Insensitivity to the actually existing religious diversity of the nation.

Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jihad and Shahadat.

Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities and other nations.

A glorification of war and the use of force and

Omission of concepts, events and material that could encourage critical self-awareness among students.

The following references are to TerryJ-Ho's usual tirades about "Hindoo lies" concerning Muslim atrocities in India:
  1. The reign of Muhammad bin-Qasim is regarded by legitimate scholars such as Upendra Thakkur as "The darkest period in Sind history", with records of massive forced conversions, temple destruction, slaughers and genocides (Sindhi Culture by U.T. Thakkur, University of Bombay 1959).The people of Sind, being inherently pacifist at the time,re-adjusted to the conditions of what has been describes as the "barbarian inroad". Descriptions entail "frightful outbreaks of religious bigotry in several places and temples were wantonly desecrated" during bin-Qasim's rule, and that Muslim travelers often extorted resources from Hindus by legal mandate. Other sources also attest to forced conversions imparted on the native Sindhis by bin-Qasim and a systematic depopulation of the region (Chand, Tara Material and Ideological Factors in Indian History,University of Allahabad, 1966).
  2. There are endless refs from Muslim sources that Muhammad Ghori conducted genocide of Hindus at Koi (modern Aligarh), Kalinjar and Varanasi, according to Hasan Nizami's Taj-ul-Maasir, 20,000 Hindu prisoners were slaughtered and their heads offered to crows.
  3. Firuz Shah Tughluq was the third ruler of the Tughlaq dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate. The "Tarikh-i-Firuz Shah" is a historical record written during his reign that attests to the systematic persecution of Hindus under his rule

{{cite book | last = Banerjee | first = Jamini | authorlink = Jamini Mohan Bannerjee | title = History of Firuz Shah Tughluq | publisher = Munshiram Manoharlal | date = 1967}} . In particular, it records atrocities on Hindu Brahmin priests who refused to convert to Islam:

“ An order was accordingly given to the Brahman and was brought before Sultan. The true faith was declared to the Brahman and the right course pointed out. but he refused to accept it. A pile was risen on which the Kaffir with his hands and legs tied was thrown into and the wooden tablet on the top. The pile was lit at two places his head and his feet. The fire first reached him in the feet and drew from him a cry and then fire completely enveloped him. Behold Sultan for his strict adherence to law and rectitude(see above ref). ”

Under his rule, Hindus who were forced to pay the mandatory Jizya tax were recorded as infidels, their communities monitored and, if they violated Imperial ordinance and built temples, they were destroyed. In particular, an incident in the village of Gohana in Haryana was recorded in the "Insha-i-Mahry" (another historical record written by Amud Din Abdullah bin Mahru) where Hindus had erected a deity and were arrested, brought to the palace and executed en-masse.

  1. Immediately before and during the reign of Aurangzeb, there was massive persecution of Hindus and Sikhs (the article is locked because Islamist editors like TerryJ-Ho want to whitewash this). See Richards, John F. (1995). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 130,177. ISBN 0-521-56603-7. “Jujhar Singh's outright defiance [of Shah Jahan's orders] inflamed Shah Jahan. He sent another large army under the nominal command of the sixteen-year-old Prince Aurangzeb to invade Bundelkhand....When overtaken by Mughal troops, Jujhar Singh's principal queens were killed by their attendants, but the remaining royal women were sent to join the Mughal harem. Two very young sons and a grandson were converted to Islam. Another older son who refused to convert was killed outright.”
  2. Firishta, Muhammad Qãsim Hindû Shãh, John Briggs (translator) (1829- 1981 Reprint). Tãrîkh-i-Firishta (History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India).The Hindu minority in Kashmir have also been historically persecuted by Muslim rulers.[17] While Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony for certain periods of time (primarily with the Sufi Muslims), several Muslim rulers of Kashmir were intolerant to other religions. Sultãn Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (AD 1389-1413) is often considered the worst of these. Historians have recorded many of his atrocities. The Tarikh-i-Firishta records that Sikandar persecuted the Hindus and issued orders proscribing the residence of any other than Muslims in Kashmir. He also ordered the breaking of all "golden and silver images". The Tarikh-i-Firishta further states: "Many of the Brahmins, rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes, while a few escaped the evil of banishment by becoming Mahomedans. After the emigration of the Bramins, Sikundur ordered all the temples in Kashmeer to be thrown down......Having broken all the images in Kashmeer, (Sikandar) acquired the title of ‘Destroyer of Idols’
  3. Under the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, the Muslim cleric Ziauddin Barrani wrote several works, such as the Fatwa-i-Jahandari, which contained disparaging statements against Hindus. Barrani has been described as a "fanatical protagonist of Islam"(Das, Arbind, Arthashastra of Kautilya and Fatwa-i-Jahandari of Ziauddin Barrani:an analysis, Pratibha Publications, Delhi 1996, ISBN:81-85268-45-2 pgs 138-139) and wrote that there should be "an all-out struggle against Hinduism", advocating a militant and dogmatic religiosity (Verma, V.P, Ancient and Medieval Indian Political Thought, Lakshmi Narasan Aggarwal Educational Publications, Agra 1986 pgs218-220). He developed a system of religious elitism to that effect.

All this is but a small cross section of Muslim atrocities in India, based on their institutional hatred for Hindus. TerryJ-Ho and other Islamist users want to dismiss this as "Kaffir Hindoo propaganda", but none of the authors above are Hindus or Hindutva people but accredited scholars. TerryJ-Ho, as uaual, is practising motive assignment (per his most recent tantrums below) that betray his own partisan and extremist intentions on wikipedia. Hkelkar 00:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Terry says that this is a "minority view". In india, all this information is suppressed because of Muslim threats, but the information is from Muslim historical sources, and secular academics from across the board, not a "minority".There are scholars who side with the Islamists, and their views certainly can be mentioned. However, the Islamist editors want all mention of the scholarly view of Muslim atrocities censored from wikipedia, and TerryJ-Ho's distortions below are an example of this trend.

[edit] More tendentious behaviour of TerryJ-Ho

Below, TerryJ-Ho says:

I suggest the arbitrators to read the reports from journals and newspapers like TIME who have covered these events and compare them to the apologetic tones of the articles By all means, do so. Also, notice that TerryJ-Ho's sources, like the leftist Newspaper The Guardian and Human Rights Watch have their own biases and prejudices, clearly exposed here (see South Asia Analysis Group for academic refs establishing their non-partisan notability) , here and here. Arundhati Roy, with her anti-Hindu, anti-American and pro=terrorist views, has deliberately fabricated information concerning the riots and exposed accordingly by Balbir Punj here. Muslim mobs attacked and slaughtered low-caste Hindu Dalit as reported by Dalits (ie not "Hindutva") [171].The attacks on Dalits have largely been ignored by the "secular" politicians, and several Hindu Nationalist organizations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Bajrang Dal came to their aid and that pisses TerryJ-Ho off. The fact that Hindutva groups can care for people goes against the madrassa-inculcated ideology of the "lowly Kaffir Hindoo" who hates Dalits.TerryJ-Ho also wants to eradicate information about Muslims in Gujarat waving pakistan's flag[172], raided Hindu temples [173][174] and Human rights watch even reports Islamofascist hate speech being broadcast against Hindus[175], a ref that Terry cited but did not elaborate on. Terry wants to dismiss this as "Kaffir Hindoo lies" as well, and delete them from wikipedia, regardless of the fact that they are all notable and verifiable.

[edit] Response to Mostlyharmless's accusations below

[edit] Mostlyharmless holds wikipedia policy in contempt

Please read my contributions to the article in question[176]. They are in scrupulous adherence to wikipedia policy. The narrative is entirely neutral and all claims are attributed as such.My opinions are my own and I have a right to them. Of course, they will not influence the narrative of my edits to articles and , in fact, they haven't. I have established the legitimacy of my edits in the talk page [177][178] .Mostlyharmless, on the other hand, commented on contributor (me), not content,in his personal attack to me [179]. Per the first paragraph of WP:NPA that is a personal attack. He also declared that he will pursue a witch-hunt against me by "alerting other users" to my views.

This user unilaterally reverted my edits without any reasonable discussion. Massive blanking of sourced edits is vandalism. Plus, there is ample precedent for such criticism in the article per this edit, which has not been contested, unlike my edits. I see a double standard against Indians at work here. Hkelkar 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mostlyharmless promulgates systemic bias

Finally, Mostlyharmless has clearly indicated below that he opposes the opinions of anyone who criticizes his pet organizations. He has engaged in forced censorship (a common practice among libertarians). He removed my edits solely because he disagreed with them, not because of any issues with wikipedia policy, which the edits adhered to rather well. Such editors are unproductive and promulgate the systemic bias problem of wikipedia.Hkelkar 03:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me stress that mostlyharmless has made no racist or antisemitic statements, he has quoted an anti-semitic source, which is not the same thing. He just seems misinformed about left-wing antisemitism and too fanatical in his libertarian ways to see the obvious truth.Hkelkar 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New anti-semitism

Mostlyharmless cited left wing countercurrents.org as a legitimate source. I cited an article by them here that showcases serious antisemitic prejudices (Jewish conspiracy theories etc. see New anti-Semitism from the left), thus, my allegations of antisemitism (not against him, but the source) is entirely with merit and the anti-semites in countercurrents.org are certainly not promulgating a "legitimate opinion".Hkelkar 16:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

PLus, the author, Jonathan Cook, is a known sympathizer with extremist terrorism like this neat little propaganda piece, for instance.See this excellent analysis of such bigoted garbage ("The New Anti-Semitism is Blamed (by Jonathan Cook) on a Vast Jewish Conspiracy").Hkelkar 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with User:TwoHorned

This is the reason why I suspect him of political and ethnic biases:

User:TwoHorned and Anti-Semitism + Obsession with allegations of Neoconservative/Jewish conspiracy theories:

Wikipedia-Fr:

Cet article nécessite une neutralisation évidente. Une phrase comme "... et soutient le règlement pacifique des rivalités régionales et internationales" est véritablement grotesque, quand on connait les prises de position de ce Forum lors de ses engagements pro-israéliens, ainsi que les écrits de Daniel Pipes. La vérité est que le Forum du Moyen-Orient est un des innombrables relais d'une politique pro-guerre et fondalement interventioniste au Proche-Orient, qu'il est aligné sur les thèses néoconservatrices et de la droite israélienne la plus dure. TwoHorned 5 août 2006 à 12:12 (CEST)

Translation:

This article needs neutralization. A phrase like ".....and supports the pacifique settlement of regional and international conflicts" is really grotesque, when one knows the positions of this Forum during their pro-Israel engagments, and also the writings of Daniel Pipes. The truth is that the Forum of the Middle East is one of the countless relays (organisations) of pro-war politics and fundamentally intervenionist in the Middle East, and is aligned on the the most hard neo-conservative and Israeli rightwing theses.

Wikipedia-Fr:

Les think-tanks néoconservateurs proches de certains mouvements fondamentalistes juifs ou chrétiens aux US sont d'une nature très particulière, et qui n'a que peu de rapport avec un parti classique conservateur, du type de celui que vous citez. TwoHorned

Translation:

The neo-conservative think-thanks which are close to certain Jewish or Christian fundamentalist movements in the US are of a very particular nature, and which has only little relation with a classic conservative (political) party, of the type that you are citing.


[180]: Here he says that Michelle Malkin is extreme right and very related to the most extremist neocon circles.

[181] Here he attacks Warraq and the ISIS (it is in English) Hkelkar 12:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice that he associated "Jews" with neoconservatives, a characterization widely regarded as an anti-semitic ethnic slur (see this).Hkelkar 16:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Hornplease by Hkelkar

Hornplease has cited diffs, but has misrepresented them egregiously. Regarding this, it is clear that it represents a scholarly view that satisfies WP:RS and so is admissible. The only reason hornplease wants it taken out is because he wants to promulgate his own prejudices and deny the Noakhali Genocide, much like a holocaust denier, only more subtle.

Hornplease put in a diff of Bakaman's[182] edits in a section titles "Hkelkar has been disruptive". It has nothing to do with me and is clearly another attempt to prejudice the ArbComm. He has cited that anti-semitism of BhaiSaab is an "accusation" whereas I have established it as fact.

I should point out that in his allegation number 6, he has lied through his teeth.Look at the diff carefully. The edits are not misrepresented but constitute a scholarly opinion, entirely citable on wikipedia for which there was near universal consensus (he was the only detractor)[183].

"as well as a complete lack of due diligence when removing statements or demanding citations:"?? Am not required to DEMAND citations per WP:RS. I demanded it, he provided it, I said ok and left the matter alone. Why is he bringing up this non-issue?Again, an attempt to prejudice the arbcomm. Please have immaterial posts removed.

Regarding Point 7, I suggest you look at the entire discussion and you will see an attempt to defame the subject of the article by certain parties, a clear cause for defwarn. Hornplease is again trying to misrepresent the situation totry to get me banned so that he may defame the subject egregiously like he did to so many others.

Regarding point 8, it was a subtle act of vandalism on hornplease's part. He was using one poorly cited source (not by me, but by another user) and using it's removal as a mask to remove a well-cited source. That is a bad faith edit on his part. Again, peruse the diffs and you will see that all my edits have been mainstream sources there and reflected the text, and hornplease only removed them and tried to cover it up with bafflegab to mask his biases

Many of the research involved in making those edits were not done by me but by other users such as User:Freedom skies. I suggest that arbcomm get his side of the story, and he will point out hornplease's egregious abuse in this case. Hkelkar 09:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Also, take a look at his bad faith edits to the anti-Hindu AfD, making claims that I have demonstrated as falsehoods that I'm sure he knew about.

Falsehoods made by hornplease:

  1. [184]

Saying that he hasn't heard of the term "anti-Hindu" and calling it a neologism, when the earliest use of it was by Sir Jadunath Sarkar in the late 1800's, some neologism.

  1. Then he claimed that it was "used only by right wing groups", another blatant lie on his part which I proved again by citing academic sources [185]

Then he himself backpedals and admits that non rightwing sources have used the term [186] This shows his intellectual dishonesty.Hkelkar 09:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. Finally, hornplease's comment that I ran a googoe book search is another blatant lie. The search was by another user [187], not by me. Thus, hornplease is an established liar and the arbcomm should take that into consideration regarding his other misrepresentations and falsifications here.Hkelkar 11:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Twohorned

Clerk note: Hkelkar's threaded responses moved here. Thatcher131 12:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't lie to blatantly. If you look at Sir Nick's post here you will see that he (a mediating admin) agreed with most of my assertions. Plus, I have clerly established that TwoHorned has made anti-semitic attributes and got rather defensive when I exposed them.Hkelkar 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"nauseating propaganda", if attributed and adequately sourced, is acceptable per wikipedia policy, What is not accpetable is terrorist poison like FOSA and HRW being sourced without appropriate attribution, which is the goal of the Muslim Guild editors (listed and unlisted).Hkelkar 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia admins should also be aware that a group of people has, for obvious reasons, the project of using extremist sources like sabrang and imc and others (see my comment concerning Sir Nick's assessment below, on which TwoHorned has lied assiduously) to spread hate against Hindus on wikipedia, a typical tactic used by BhaiSaab and TerryJ-Ho and, evidently, backed by twoHorned in his anti-semitic rants.Hkelkar 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
HRW is hardly "harmless", several groups like ADL have confirmed that they are anti-semites and Arvind Bahl has shown that they are anti-Hindu as well. Many reputable news sources have established their pro-Hamas pro-Hezbollah Islamist sympathies. See Human_Rights_Watch#Criticisms, an interesting section that showcases their racist biases.Hkelkar 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I have already established that TerryJ-Ho HAS been harrassing me (see the workshop page where even ArbComm mambers have raised this concern).Hkelkar 04:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Notice his baseless comments about "Hindutva rhetoric" where I have used quite legitimate sources to cite facts that have nothing to do with any Hindu group at all (show me where I have done so). This TwoHorned should change his userid to TwoFaced, given his obvious misrepresentations.Hkelkar 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I also hope that Arbcom notices his usage of words like "extremist" to denote legitimate think tanks that I have sourced and attributed, as well as websited like http://www.dalithumanrights.com, and others that he dismisses as "Hindutva rhetoric" (see Dalit) should show his own biases on this matter and his attempt to get me banned so that he may put in his own Islamist biases into the articles which I have painstakingly cleaned up and neutralized.Hkelkar 04:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to NinaEliza below

In response to NinaEliza's claim of me "misrepresenting" edits, let me point out that all my statements are well-sourced and attributed per WP:RS. In contrast, her friends, several radical Neo-Buddhist editors, have made several misrepresented and biased edits to the Indian Buddhist Movement article, made racist and ethnic attacks against me, and have gotten away with it.They are summarized below:

User:Ambedkaritebuddhist:

  1. Summary [188]."If he would have been anti-Hindu then he could have converted to Islam to take revenge against Hindu Casteism and Untouchability. Hindus fist remove your InHuman Caste System" (using wikipedia as a soapbox)
  2. [189]
  3. Massive disruption : [190] (he's done this once before)
  4. [191]"The link of The-Week? I don't know whos mouthpeice is it?" Accusations against non-partisan sources.
  5. [192]There are millions of Ambedkarite all over India and world but all are not converted to Buddhism by taking 22 vows. So the people who are denouncing Caste based Hindu Religon and CONVERTING to Buddhism are Buddhist. Rest of the people in Govt. cencus is FORCIBLY and Cheatingly calculated as Hindu. To prove our point finally we have to give official data. So lets convert more people to Buddhism and show the world that Indian Buddhist Movement is alive and wrowing faster.Don't waste much time with debating hypocrate people but give PROPER REFERENCES and PROOFS and shut the mouth of such people unsourced (and rather outrageous) falsifications. Using wikipedia as a soapbox for missionary propaganda.
  6. [193]False accusations of vandalism (ie a personal attack)
  7. [194]you both young boys (connotations of paedophilia?). Attacking other moderate Buddhists like Thegreyanomaly:I never asked who are you? OR Never asked your Caste Brahmin by birth or your own religious enlightments?. For that you can write on your own Page. Take care while writings on Buddhist related articles. Wiki Administratotrs please take note of such explanations and the activities of such users.


User Srilankanbuddhist:

  1. Using wikipedia for propaganda [195]The article gives interesting and valuable information about Buddhists in India (even though he misrepresented his unreliable sources with false information)
  2. Bogus claims of vandalism [196] False accusation of vandalism again
  3. Repeated misrepresentations and other forms of vandalism [197] Using an unreliable source that says 3 hundred thousand people converted to Buddhism, then misrepresenting it as 3 million (repreatedly) (see this link to see what the Sinhala Neo-Buddhists have REALLY been up to)


User:Dhammafriend:

  1. Tendentious edits: [198]Misrepresentation again (other users agree per [this] by Nineliza herself, no less)
  2. Invicil edit summaries [199]Udint (sic) Raj is not lower caste he kicked u r Hindu Religon
  3. [200]Why are you worried about Hindu ? u r a Thervada Buddhist so concentrate for positive inputs to Buddhist article Incivil attitude towards moderate Buddhists
  4. [201]Caste Brahmins are beggers in Temples - Racist stereotyping
  5. meatpuppetry [202]


  1. Racist PA from Ambedkaritebuddhist [203] Vandalism by Neo-Jew HKelkar -- Ethnic slur


User:Dhammafriend:

  1. Summary:[204]
  2. [205] "One more thing BodhiDhamma is my brother in USA so we are not like you people" -- Racism
  3. [206] Spamming and Missionary propaganda soapboxing again
  4. [207] Again
  5. [208] Again
  6. [209]idden Attackers Thegreyanomaly and Hkelkar Personal attack to me and a moderate Buddhist
  7. [210]Revert-warring

There is much more, and I will elaborate on this matter further. Hkelkar 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcomm has to understand that these Neo-Buddhist whack-bags have been getting away with this for MONTHS without any sysop doing anything about them. In the face of such a barrage of insults, PA's and tendentious edits, it is no wonder that I lost my cool on some occasions.Hkelkar 07:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One must clarify on one thing. There is a Galaxy of difference between the normative Buddhism practised by hundreds of millions of good decent Buddhists around the world, and the poisonous cult of Neo-Buddhism. There are significant similarities between Neo-Buddhists and scientology or Jews for Jesus, bith well-known cults ie, suppressive, secretive, exploitative and often abusive and violent in their rhetoric and action. They are extremely violent, propagandistic, missionary groups who subscribe to Buddhism in name only. Instead, their ideology is basically a form of thuggery with buzzwords borrowed from the Buddhist lexicon (Dhamma etc.). They claim to follow the taeachings of the good Babasaheb Ambedkar, but they misuse his well-intentioned writings to promulgate hatred and violence (see this and this).They, together with the Sinhala quasi-Buddhists, have given Buddhism a very bad reputation and their distortions (and sometimes outright lies) on wikipedia need to be investigated without corrupting our perspective of Buddhism, which is an enlightened system of religious philosophy, millenia old, that has served the spiritual needs of many.Hkelkar 10:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Important update:User:Pkulkarni has been blocked for one month for running these sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts, as confirmed by User:Dmcdevit[211]:

  1. User:Bhangi brahmin
  2. User:HKelkar2
  3. User:Kelkar123
  4. User:Iqbal123
  5. User:Dhammafriend
  6. User:Ambedkaritebuddhist
  7. User:Shrilankabuddhist
  8. User:Buddhistindian

The problem users described above were all sockpuppets and were causing disruption, avoiding bans etc.Thus, I was basically right here. Hkelkar 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More regarding hornplease

About hornplease: he's a very biased editor. He goes at great lenghts to denigrate writers sympathetic to Hindu causes like Koenraad Elst (see the long discussion on the Wikiproject about Systematic bias in religion below) or Rosser [212] , sometimes deletes text without reason, or inserts falsehoods. But he's nevertheless careful not to cross the line and appear as a pov pusher (which he obviously is). It seems that while his edit pattern show a consistent and strong pov editing, he is nevertheless always "on the safe side", he takes care not to appear as a pov pusher, though it becomes obvious upon a more detailed examination of his contribs. Here [213] he says "a claim the editors later removed as 'misleading'" which is false and unsourced.

See this little debate below:

  1. User:Bondego points out that User:hornplease and User:TerryJ-Ho (formerly User:Lkadvani) are practicing "book-banning" on wikipedia[214][215], constantly deleting refs to authors sympathetic to Hindus but having no trouble with authors who exhibit clear signs of Marxist historiography[216]
  2. Hornplease replies[217] and Bondego clearly points out the bias on his part[218][219][220]
  3. Hornplease parries by quoting another opinion[221]
  4. Bondego qualifies[222][223][224]
  5. Bondego points to precedent[225]
  6. Hornplease tries to backpedal[226]
  7. Bondego shreds hornplease's argument[227][228]
  8. hornplease becomes desperate[229]

The above diffs point to the following:

  1. hornplease holds Hindu and Hindu-sympathetic writers to a different standard than he does Muslim or Leftist sympathetic authors
  2. He tends to engage in verbal sparring-matches with those he disagrees with
  3. He has a clear pattern of bias and double standards Hkelkar 05:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding hornplease's statement concerning "scholars" like Romila Thapar, may I point out that almost ALL of the names he cited, while being published, have been shown to have Marxist historiographical biases, proving my point about his double standards.Thapar is well known to make falsifications, for instance, see [230] & [231]. At best, she is a highly controversial "scholar".Hkelkar 07:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Itsmejudith

I have no animus or ill-feeling against Itsmejudith and would like to work with her to address her issues.I do not have any issues with her edits to the articles as they stand right now.However, I will elaborate on this matter at a later date.Hkelkar 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to say is that I have not reverted any of her edits since they have unquestionably been in good faith. I disagree with her on some accounts, though. I feel that her post here is s bit skewed since I haven't actually done anything that can be construed as "against her edits" in any way. Once she explains her position articulately and to my satisfaction I have acceded to her edits. I will elaborate on this matter shortly.Hkelkar 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. My inquiry (not accusation) [232] was based on the legitimate concern that she may be rendering a partisan bias to the said article. Once she explained her position and Basawala (I've got more on him) threatened me I apologized and backed off. Notice that I have always asserted that she is a good editor [233].
  2. Regarding my assertion of "racist wikipedians", it is not entirely unfounded, considering the comments and assertions and POV-warring by the user(s) in question and near-universal consensus against them here,here, here and here.Hkelkar 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence regarding ikonoblast

In my opinion, Ikonoblast is among the most malicious and disruptive users that I have encountered on wikipedia so far. He vandalizes articles by removing sourced statements, and tries to edit-war with users by any and all means necessary, upto and inclusing engaging in various forms of baiting, stalking and arguing with admins and even being vicious to them. Here is a small collection of his tendentious edits.

Kancha Ilaiah debate: Attacking reliable Sources on bad faith: [234]

Continuous bad faith assumption: [235]

incivility: [236]

Admin and mediator Ben W bell agreeing with me and the validity of my sources, ikonoblast continued to argue

now just being generally disruptive[237], since the source in question, Himal Magazine, is well-known. He then tried to deflect the argument [238]

Below are Ben W Bell's reactions:

[239] [240] [241] [242]

Finally, Ikonoblast gave up and grumbled away. He then made several incivil comments to Ben W bell: [243] [244] (see summary)

Insulting incivility to admin William M Connolley: [245] [246]

He kept edit-warring on votebank and adding bogus warnings to my page as an intimidation tactic. He kept removing sourced information that the Communist Party of India engages in votebank politics, replacing it with unsourced (and false) information that they did not.

Edit-warring on votebank (vandalistic, since he was removing my sourced edits and not adding any of his own). He violated this proposed principle [247], made several false accusations of vandalism of Gamesmasterg9's edits[248]

Vandalized a {{dubious}} tag without discussion [249]

Deliberately misrepresented a source [250] (the himalmag ref he cited does not support his edits about the Communist Party avoiding votebank politics)

When I fixed it, he reverted with an incivil edit summary[251]

Persisted revert-warring: [252]

Again, false accusation of vandalism on gamesmasterg9's edits: [253]

False accusation of vandalism on MY edits: [254]

He did all of the above in relatively quick succession, demonstrating an intent to disrupt the editing process in order to push his agenda.


Edit-warring on Laloo Prasad Yadav

Same thing as votebank. False accusation of vandalism in edit summary: [255] [256]

Bogus warnings galore: [257] intimidation tactic [258] accusing me of rv warring, when it was he who who had been misrepresenting sources, and revert-warring to push that POV.

[259] [260] [261]

An argument erupted between ikonoblast and gamesmasterg9, where ikonoblast repeatedly cast aspersions on him,assumed bad faith, violated WP:OWN and bullied gamesmasterg9 to the point of frustration:

[262] [263] [264] [265] [266] [267]


Incivility to me: [268]

He then accused US of harrassment, to which he was replied by gamesmasterg9: [269]

Hkelkar 01:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Nobleeagle

[edit] TerryJ-Ho has a prejudice against Hinduism, Hindus and Hindu culture

The most disturbing bit of this evidence is the heading. Culture of Hate, he then goes to talk about how Hindus in India are prejudiced against Muslims. But what is the Culture of Hate, a religion that has been known for its peacefulness has now suddenly spawned a culture of hate? Clear bias, almost disturbing view of another culture. The rest of the discussion is on Hkelkar's Jewishness. This is not the first time such users have placed huge importance on Hkelkar's religion. just one more example. TerryJ-Ho reckons Hindu culture is a Culture of Hate and then goes on to try and prove Hkelkar is Hindu, which to him implies that Hkelkar is from this Hate-filled culture. I am personally offended. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TerryJ-Ho acts in bad faith against Hindu or Hindutva-sympathetic users

First of all. I made a simple good faith merge of seperate incidents on 2002 Gujarat violence. I don't see any bad faith or Hindutva propaganda in my edit. TerryJ-Ho comes back and accuses me of doing a PR for the Gujarat Government and labels my edit as disgusting. see here. I'm offended by that as he effectively accuses me of supporting the killing of innocent people.

Also see the archived deletion debate here. TerryJ-Ho nominates a well-sourced and well-built article for two reasons. The fact that it breeds Hindu sympathetic feelings and the fact that it was created by Hkelkar. Nothing else. He then brings up the point that Anti-Hindu is an adjective. Well then he should've asked for a move or politely asked for a merge. But he acted in bad faith. If you see his first comments he describes Hindutva - the right wing Hindu religio- Xenophobe movement in India and increasingly abroad . Firstly the right wing religio-xenophobe accusation is false, but I shouldn't talk about that here, secondly that proves that his motives for this deletion debate were simply because he wanted to get rid of Hindutva on Wikipedia. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ikonoblast (previously User:Holywarrior) acts in bad faith

I'd like to draw attention to this little section here on Talk:Khatri. Please take a read through.

First of all he accuses me of sockpuppetry because I sent a Welcome message to their talk page. Then he goes on to say Anon. first of all let me put it very frankly---I have no respect for Anon. editors. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ikonoblast spreads rumours about other users

On this very talk page, he said Nobleeagle's misdeeds against me are amazing. I have learnt that he used to leave my signature before abusing some newcommers (anon. IPs), plz check his contributions. He was, I believe, referring to the evidence I presented against him just above. Let me say I have never faked people's signatures, but what Ikonoblast said on this talk page was a blatant lie. Here is the diff for my above evidence, so there was no faking signatures. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See talk page, the issue has been resolved, the dispute was a misunderstanding regarding my welcome template. Thus I withdraw this particular piece of evidence. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by TerryJ-Ho

[edit] Responses

If blocks are any indication - I have not been blocked but for 1 hour in total on Bakasuprman's call.HKelkar is increasingly trying to portray my edits in negative light when I have on most occasions avoided rhetoric which is a hallmark of almost all of Hkelkar's interventions even to this date.He seems bent on making me suffer the same fate as him as a result of this arbitration knowing that his position is increasingly becoming precarious.I could personally post in more evidences but I do not have as much time online as HKelkar.I would assume that arbitrators will themselves make an effort to understand the situation and not rely only on evidences here MerryJ-Ho 11:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Bakasuprman
Response to Nobeleagle
  • Anyone reading my comments knows what I mean and not what you are trying to project.Another time tested strategy of this group of editors to save Hkelkar's skin - instead of replying to the charges with reason- they will attack othersMerryJ-Ho
  • Again - Mr.Kelkar's Jewish religion is being raked by this group and not me or those who oppose the Hindutva - Hindu right wing POV pushing on Wikipedia.MerryJ-Ho
Response to Freedomskies
  • Double standards - Much hype is being made of my comments on "Culture of hate" - which is a specific instance where I have termed HKelkar's activities as hateful and not "Hinduism" as religion or "Indian Culture" to which I belong too.While HKelkar got some Bhiasaab blocked for comments that were construed as Anti-Semitic - he walks away in all liberty calling me Pakistani - which in Indian scenario is considered an abuse - considering that Pakistan is taken as India's traditional enemy.
Response to Hkelkar

Will write more from home -

  1. incivil (and deliberately false) edit summaries:[271]
  • Is it a common trend? Anyone looking at the history of that article will know the reason why?..False according to whom?
  1. Hypocrisy:He accuses me of using "Anti-X, Anti-Y", but he himself uses the term anti-Muslim liberally, even to the point of violating WP:BLP against Daniel Pipes.Irrelevant BLP against Pipes: [272]Again:[273].That's three times, in case anyone's counting
  1. More BLP violation on Narendra Modi, using poorly sourced statements to defame personality:[274][275]
  • "The Guardian" published from London..Poor source???..All are invited to look into what was removed by HKelkar
  1. Paranoid accusations of "fascist right wing blah blah":[276][277]
  2. Tried to instigate a witch Hunt by filing a medcab, which got resoundly denied:Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-18_Edits_by_Netaji_and_Bakaspuprman_on_India_related_pages
  • As far as I know - it was decided that the issue was not under the purview of Medcab but Arbcomm - whether resoundly denied or otherwise seems another matter..btw ultimately we have reached Arbcomm
  1. Evoking a commonly false argument to whitewash antisemitism:[278](TerryJ-HO's not stupid, he is aa very smart man who clearly knew the fallacy of this argument and used it merely to provoke me)
  • HKelkar could also be a very smart man not to fall into such percieved provocations..At least we find him on WP more often than one finds TerryJ-Ho
  1. Could be ignorance, could be baiting, you decide.Removing sourced edit:[279]
  • Have some shame..it is crystal clear that that item was not supported by any source
  1. Repeated Bad Faith Assumptions:[280][281]
  2. Bad faith AfD (overwhelmingly condemned as such)[282], already discussed by NobleEagle
  1. Spamming talk pages of unrelated aritcles with disputes from other articles to try to form coteries of Guild meatpuppets:[283]
  1. Further Spamming of talk pages with material that is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, also baiting:[284]
  2. Falsified/misleading statements with a clear intent of ethnic baiting:[285]
  3. Whitewashing topics without providing any sources. He did this to the point of blanking entire sections,vandalism as well:[286][287][288]
  4. Again, labeling of users and ethnic baiting on Muslim Guild page to invite mass-reverters etc:[289]

Concerning TerryJ-Ho's obsession with my Jewishness, he has routinely attacked my Jewishness [290][291][292] and has constantly harassed me about it [293]. He has been repeatedly incivil to me [294] and been warned by an admin to desist this line of harassment [295].

  • HKelkar was very eagerly answering the questions until Nick wrote that comment.Why did he not write that he was feeling harassed. What is the defintion of Jewishness that I attacked?

Newer Responses

  • Request to Arbcomms - please note that there is a significant contradiction to my edits and what has been represented by HKelkar in these allegations.So my humble request is that you check these by clicking them one by one.It is frustrating for me to reply to each of these one by one.

User:TerryJ-Ho deliberately misrepresents sources

  1. Here, he cited a partisan group as "independent media" (fixed by me)[296]
  • The independent media stuff was from reversion and not my own words.Secondly, apart from PUCL - which is a Civil rights group in India - it is true that independeent media reported the same MerryJ-Ho
  1. Same again (sabrang is a partisan Muslim-run lobby group that glorifies Islamic terrorism) [297]
  • Sabrang is a Anti-Communalist publication - TRUTH - is that not only Sabrang was linked many independent publications were very clearly linked.I am copying them below:

-[298][299][300][301][302][303][304]After riots, it’s economic boycott call

User:TerryJ-Ho uses wikipedia as a soapbox for expressing partisan views #Here, makes political statements against Hindutva in an article about riots[305].

  • Its a sourced statement of an International Fact Finding Team in Gujarat - this was from Indian Express and based on Indian Press Agency - Press Trust of India.
  1. Here, he calls allegations of media bias as "ope/eds by Hindu commentators", despite the fact that the religion of the parties are not all established [306]
  • All these are Weasel statements to scale down the magnitude of the massacre in Gujarat
  1. [307] - He cites another partisan opinion (defense council of the victims) with very subtle POV wording.
  • This report is from Indian Newspaper The Hindu - and those are not my words but are from the Newspapers headlines-bylines

User:TerryJ-Ho engages in trollish behaviour

  1. "Lies lies spread by Hindutvaadis" irrelevant commentary in the talk page of an unrelated article.
The article in question covers Tipu Sultan and his depiction in the Hindutvavadi literature as distortion of facts - It is very much related to the article and not a troll.Hkelkar immediately removed it from the talk page as it showed his position in bad light against all WP norms
  1. Again, well-poisoning and trollery on Talk:2002 Gujarat violence, soapboxing against an incident that did not happen in the period of the article subject (not in 2002, and non-violent to boot) [308]
Should we take HKelkar's words or of a reputed publication Outlook - that publishes it in context of the Gujarat riots
  1. Please pay attention to the fact that HKelkar has written some new evidence that makes one believe that the words that I have boldened in the following text are mine.These are strictly not mine but HKelkar's words MerryJ-Ho 10:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC) "Some background material.Regarding point #1 above,TerryJ-Ho says below that his screed is relevant because he assigns me a "Hindoo liar" motive, alleging that it is the product of "Kaffir Hindoo historical revisionism". However, the refs I used in that article are shown below:


  1. Perpetrators of Godhra Train Burning are innocent and Indian Army are all traitors [309][310]but reaction riots in Gujarat were perpetrated by "evil Hindoos" (see his comments below)
Ohh, Its getting very distracting for me - "evil Hindoos" is not my wordings..Please see the entire thread to learn why I said what I said.Specially, Bakaman's provocations - This is one of the few places I lost my cool MerryJ-Ho 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. He uses the declaration of Narendra Modi (a man Muslims hate)[311] to justify violence against Hindus.

:::Same as above.read the entire thread to see why the same has been referred #Muslims are justified in attacking Hindus as a "sponteneous reaction"[312]. All this is common Lashkar-e-Toiba and Students Islamic Movement of India rhetoric.::::Again, Pls read the entire thread to see the provocations from Bakasuprman#Ridicules verifiable claims of brutal atrocities against Hindus by Islamic Fundamentalists (see Persecution of Hindus)[313] - This was in reaction to creating myths of Hindu Holocaust not based on conventional history MerryJ-Ho 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Disparaging Hindu beliefs (he should have criticized in a scholarly way, but his tone is mocking, like the tone of an Islamic Fundamentalist)[314] Hkelkar 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC) - They are not in ridiculing way. MerryJ-Ho
  2. Here &diff=80463224&oldid=80456825 he says I should "thank Aurangzeb" and that historians "don't say that there was any persecution"[315].This is a blatant lie (Richards, John F. (1995). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 130,177:"Jujhar Singh's outright defiance of this order inflamed Shah Jahan. He sent another large army under the nominal command of the sixteen-year-old Prince Aurangzeb to invade Bundelkhand....When overtaken by Mughal troops, Jujhar Singh's principal queens were killed by their attendants, but the remaining royal women were sent to join the Mughal harem. Two very young sons and a grandson were converted to Islam. Another older son who refused to convert was killed outright.""In many disputed successions for hereditary local office Aurangzeb chose candidates who had converted to Islam over their rivals. Pargana headmen and quangos or recordkeepers were targeted especially for pressure to convert. The message was very clear for all concerned. Shared political community must also be shared religious belief").This is highly offensive remark to Hindus and Sikhs (Bear in mind that TerryJ-Ho thinks that I am a Hindu) because Aurangzeb the Islamic emperor was responsible for the demolition of temples, imposition of Jizya, enforcement of Islamic Law forced conversions to Islam, and other atrocities on the Sikh people (see the rest of the wikipedia article and this). Note that the article is protected because pakistani Nationalists want him portrayed as a "great hero" like TerryJ-Ho just did. - The status of Mughal empire and Tipu Sultan with respect to Hindus is debatable - many scholars laud their contributions on Aurangzeb , for example to bringing the largest amount of territory under his control, some refer to the grants they made to Hindu temples while others refer to them for differentiating between Hindu and Muslim subjects.The articles in question under edits by HKelkar and supporters are developing into their bashing in total.On the other hand , HKelkar and others are trying to hide and whitewash the role of Hindu chauvinism in India - on something as recent as Babri Masjid demolition and Gujarat Pogrom.I suggest the arbitrators to read the reports from journals and newspapers like TIME who have covered these events and compare them to the apologetic tones of the articles like Gujarat Riots and Narendra Modi on Wikipedia MerryJ-Ho 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence showing that Hkelkar is an upgraded version of Subhash Bose, Pussyamitra Sunga et. al

  • Shiva's Trident has recieved numerous last warnings and HKelkar himself has recieved them in abundance.If it is established that both are the same person , that is aggravating.As this is not a live audience where the two persons can be called separately, I believe due weightage will be accorded to the circumstantial evidence which is quite strong in this case.

Evidence will be given here

Editing per Pussyamitra Sunga

Editing per Shiva's Trident

Editing per HKelkar

Editing per Shiva's Trident

Editing per HKelkar

[edit] Evidence showing that Hkelkar is a Hindutva POV posting machine

Always on - HKelkar goes on like a bulldozer, destroying numerous articles within a single session calling the process as NPOVising the article and balancing the article.

* Note that I have taken liberty in calling HKelkar as a Hindutva POV Posting machine which is probably the only way I could think of somebody that is omnipresent in Wikipedia space and time and makes it difficult for the common POV ( non Hindutva ) on WP.My belief is that on Arbitration - one can express more freely than other spaces of WP.

[edit] Evidence presented by TwoHorned

[edit] Evidence showing that Hkelkar is very likely a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer

  • In connection with the previous point and some of Hkelkar's edits ([316], [317]), an examination of the different physics departments at the University of Texas, Austin, shows that Hkelkar = Netaji (same logo used in Netaji's page, same specific subdomains of statistical physics, convergence on research topics as displayed by H. Kelkar and Netaji etc.). Since the evidence involves the names of individuals outside this case, I'll provide the links on admins' request. Please also note that, as opposed to Hkelkar's accusation, I don't intent to display Hkelkar's real name: instead, Hkelkar gave his real name himself in the above-mentionned Wikipedia edit [318].

TwoHorned 13:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hkelkar makes defamation using unfounded threat of anti-semitism

  • Hkelkar has accused me of antisemitism, without ever giving any substantiation. In the following evidence, he levelled that accusation against me: [319]. Note that the accusation was levelled just because I used the term "neocon" in a discussion page. I mentionned sometimes the word "neocon" in some wikipedia articles I edited (for instance [320], [321], [322], [323] three of them are in french) but they never contain any antisemitic allegation, and I explained that to Hkelkar in my talk page [324]. I also took the time to make Hkelkar see that this word "neocon" was used in the Wikipedia article on Neoconservatism many times without triggering any accusation of antisemitism. I repeatedly asked him to substantiate his point (for instance [325]). He never did, and never provided any quotation, for obvious reasons. In his user page [326], Shiva'sTrident introduces himself as a neocon, and the self-proclamed political affiliations of that user in the same page make the connection with the sockpuppetry case clear.
  • In an above paragraph, and also in his user page, user Hkelkar presents a future on-going project of his own called User TwoHorned and Anti-Semitism where he is repeating once again the same baseless accusation. He presents two excerpts coming from french wikipedia articles I edited. I comment them separately:
  • The first passage comes from the discussion page in the french article on the Middle East Forum. In the discussion, I am saying that the main article needs neutralization because, according to numerous sources, the Middle East Forum does not feature an impartial perspective on Middle East conflict and that, yes, it is aligned with right-wing and pro-israeli warfare. Such an assertion does not contain any antisemitic intention, and it represents a mainstream opinion in some media and specialized litterature. That Hkelkar interprets that according to "Jewish conspiracy" stream of thought and antisemitic views remains a mystery to me.
  • The second passage comes from another discussion page of a french Wikipedia article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. There, I am discussing with somebody trying to explain me that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been backed in the Netherlands by "conservative parties". Then, I explain that what is called the "neoconservative movement" is not of the same type than classical conservative parties in Europe. This is a well known fact, completely devoid of any antisemitic connotation. That some fundamentalist Christian or Jewish groups give support to the neocons is also a fact, not an interpretation of my own. Incidentally, Hkelkar never got me blocked on the "antisemitic ground" although his threats [327] (you will notice that, in the previous link, he also suspects me of being "a sock of indefbanned User:Robert Lindsay", another baseless accusation).
  • Regarding my quotation on Michelle Malkin provided by Hkelkar, I was writing that Michelle Malkin is a right-wing journalist, and I guess I'm not the only one saying that, and this is not antisemitism anyway; that quotation occurred in an edit (see [328] where you can see the link).
  • And regarding the link provided about my edit in the Ibn Warraq article [329], I was just providing evidence, using the Internet Archive Engine, that the ISIS web site once featured a link to a right-wing political party that has been banned in Israel since. As you can read by yourself here [330] there is nowhere any mention of a so-called "Jewish conspiracy", neither there nor in any edit I've ever done.
  • My edits about the neoconservative movement represent a very small amount among my contributions. So where is it to discuss about my "obsession with allegations of Neoconservative/Jewish conspiracy theories" ? [331]
  • Hkelkar's accusations of antisemitism are unfounded, but it seems sometimes impossible for him to repress edits of a truly racist character: Hkelkar has been using the word “Ayrabs” to depict Arabs [332]. That word is very frequently used by racist people on extreme-right web sites. An example: [333], [334] (warning: offensive content). About that Hkelkar says [335]: “Regarding my unfortunate comment about Arabs, if you see the diff I immediately withdrew it once I realized that it can be misinterpreted as anti-Arabism”. Well, not immediatly, a mere 4 hour later, and probably not because of disgust with such racist slang: this word “Ayrab” is used exclusively by racist extremists, so it cannot be “misinterpreted”: there is one and only one interpretation of it. Instead wasn’t user Hkelkar suddenly aware of being unmasked on Wikipedia as using the same slang as his “intellectual” sources ?

TwoHorned 16:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hkelkar, along with a group of users, puts a specific ideological bias on Wikipedia articles related to India

I apologize to the ArbCom to put a long section here, but I have a lot to say, and I adopt the following scheme: description + diffs.

  • To understand exactly what Hkelkar's disruption pattern is, what are its objectives and framework of realization, one has to refer to Netaji's planned agenda, as stated by himself in his user page:
"Working on cleaning up the awful wikipedia articles on Hinduism, Indian history and Indian Politics. Most of them are absolute disasters and are being edited by certain "ahem" people with vested political and polemical interests". [336].
  • Such a "cleaning process", which is incidentally exactly what Hkelkar has been doing since an admin's conclusion of Netaji being a sockpuppet, was intented to alter, vandalize and present in a inconceivable partisan pro-Hindutva outlook all Wikipedia articles about India's history.
  • This agenda consists basically in the following: with a nearly chaotic state of irrepressed excitation and relentless combativity, change all Wikipedia articles related to the mutual relations between India's history, Hinduism and Islam to produce an extremist portrayal on these thematics paralleled with a specific political perspective. Hkelkar and his mates are not quite learned about the issues they intervene into, extremely prolific, and not quite challenging intellectually (the quantitative argument which is put forward by Bakasuprman in a nearly automatic manner, about the so-called impressive amounts of edits done by Hkelkar or Bakasuprman is irrelevant, for quite a simple reason: in the domains of knowledge or encyclopedic matters, quantity adds for zero w.r.t. understanding). Since these people don't compete at the intellectual level, their method of action is the following:
a- first proceed to raw reversion and knowingly expose balanced views;
b- wait for the original editor to react upon;
c- then, here is what happens: Hkelkar or his wiki-friends quickly end the discussion either by insults, incivility, or using considerations not related to the topic, like defamation of other academics [example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koenraad_Elst&diff=84306559&oldid=84305873].
d- All this logically triggers an obvious reaction from the first editor, which is quickly banned on 3RR violation basis (this is where they make use of sock and meat puppetry, among other instances).
  • Here is a typical list of diffs illustrating the previous paragraph; Hkelkar and Bharatveer working in pair to block me:
  1. [337],
  2. [338],
  3. [339],
  4. [340],
  5. [341],
  6. [342]. All of this results in my blocking for 3RR.
This pattern has been applied systematically, and not only with me (another example, not involving me: [343]). You will notice that in the process I explained my edits in the talk page. I have fallen in their trap of 3RR violation, because it was the first time I got blocked on these matters, and I was unaware of the 3RR rule at that time.
  • It should be mentionned that such reversions, lack of references and incivility is still operating as the request of arbitration is under way. For example, I added a referenced sentence in the Koenraad Elst page: [344]. The reference was there to show some topics related to the author described in the article, these topics coming from the author's publishing's house itself. Then, for unknown reasons, user Bondego (a wiki-friend of Hkelkar) just cancelled the reference and the sentence I wrote, and rewrote the sentence while providing a reference geared at whitewashing the controversial topic related to the author: [345] (these deletions were appearing in the "Controversy and influences" section of the article). I posted a message on Bondego's talk page, asking him not to cancel properly referenced topics: [346]. While I was waiting Bondego's reply (which came a long time after), another wiki-friend of Hkelkar, Bharatveer then comes into play, and proceeds to another reversion without giving any explanation: [347].
  • Why do these people work in pair ? (for instance: [348]) To force editors they disagree with to violate 3RR while evading that rule in the same time. This is just an example of a process I observed many times with these users. Incidentally, Koenraad Elst is an extremely controversed author sharing the same ideological views than Hkelkar, Bharatveer etc. It seems very important to these disruptive users to completely rewrite Wikipedia articles related to India in order to display this typical extremist and Hindutva coloration. Such a warring behaviour, though now unveiled, did produce a noticeable effect: there is an incrediblly huge set of Wikipedia articles about India's history, Hinduism and Islam that are considerably altered by that war machine, and they lighten the seriousness of Wikipedia on these matters. The "fantastic energy" depicted by Hornplease to describe the obsessive destruction pattern of Hkelkar and his friends lead me to the same ending conclusion: I have no time to indefinitely proceed to reversion of articles that are viciously altered by these people (and doing so using Wikipedia in a very perverse manner); so, I also came to the conclusion to abandon any editing in Wikipedia. I have contributed to few articles to the English Wikipedia, for instance to the Koenraad Elst article; my aim was to honestly mention the controversies about a truly controversed author (both in India and in the West) who, like Hkelkar , fits himself into a process of "rewriting history", and I provided all references and citations which were, by no means a reflexion of my own ideas, but opinions displayed by professional academics, for example Prof. R. Zydenbos. No one can imagine the war-editing process that was engaged by Hkelkar to systematically erase all my contributions (you'll get an idea of it by referring to [349], and then on). Among them: accusations of antisemitism (which are, as I said, totally ungrounded), dirty play with 3RR rule, denials and insults to me and other academics, and finally, since these people have really nothing to oppose in the intellectual domain, the following conclusion: [350].
  • I now illustrate the previous paragraph with a series of diffs.
I’ve been involved in the redaction of the “Controversies” part of the Koenraad Elst article; this controversial author had in the beginning an apological article, and I worked on documenting the “Controversies” section. I also worked thoroughly the discussion page of Koenraad Elst article, first under my first id on Wikipedia AlexOriens, an id I almost don’t use anymore, then under my present id, TwoHorned.
  1. Then Netaji comes into scene, and ask Hornplease to suspend the discussion: [351] because he wants to contact Koenraad Elst himself. Around that time, the article page looked like this: [352]. This was around July 27 or so. In the meantime, I developped a long conversation in the talk page explaining the validity of the references I gave for the controversial aspects of Koenraad Elst: [353].
  2. Then Hkelkar comes into the arena, and cancels the edits of someone called Kochank: [354]. Kochank edit simply added the fact that Koenraad Elst works are controversial, a well known fact among academics. Incidentally, you will notice that Hkelkar cancelled the edit for the obsessive motive of “letf-wing Marxist propaganda”, an instinct common among hindutvavadis. I take the opportunity here to say that I have absolutely no sympathy for the “Marxist left-wing” (we suffer from these guys in France since May 68), and that I have a profound admiration both for Islam and Hinduism.
  3. But all of this triggers a legitimate reversion from Kochank, who says in his edit summary that he gives explanations in the talk page:[355].
  4. Then Hkelkar reverses again: [356]. You will notice the curious partisan method of quoting controversies about an author with the author himself. Serious academic never work like that. You have to expose both parties.
  5. Then someone tries legitimately to put the article in the right track by reversion to the previous version: [357].
  6. Hkelkar reverts again (without any quotation, by the way): [358].
  7. Hornplease modifes the article, triggering an eruption from Bondego: [359].
  8. Hkelkar comes back, and describes Daniel Pipes as a “middle east scholar”, instead of the more classical “neoconservative” qualification used, among many instances, by Wikipedia itself: [360]. All of that deserves one goal: to wash a controversial author from his well known affiliations into politically suspect milieux. Please note Hkelkar’s edit summary in [361]: how can it be WP:BLP since Daniel Pipes is introduced that way in Wikipedia itself ?
  9. Then comes the serious stuff: Bondego removes all the well referenced controversies, in particular those coming from R. Zydenbos, a well known academic: [362].
  10. I decided it was time to intervene, and I engaged into a reversion process, perfectly legitimate since sources coming from academic are given: [363].
  11. Hkelkar then takes the occasion not only to make reversion, but to cancel all the controversies: [364] under the edit summary of “biased writeup”. Not only that, Hkelkar removes in the talk page my edit saying that Daniel Pipes is foremost a neoconservative instead of a middle-east scholar: [365]: but that was the description given in the Wikipedia article for Daniel Pipes itself ! This pattern is then applied systematically in my future edits, with unfounded accusations of antisemitism, incivility etc.
  • Wikipedia admins should be aware that a group of people has, for unknown reasons, the project of entirely "rewriting" Indian Wikipedia articles in order to display in these articles the most extremist, hateful and nauseating propaganda geared towards a deepening of the Hindu/Muslim divide in India. I am afraid that this can be really dangerous because of the ever-growing large-scale audience Wikipedia is getting, and moreover such a pattern does not match the deep, complex, living and hidden network of relations that evolved in India between Hinduism and Islam throughout history. Wikipedia admins would be well advised that all articles "revisited" or created by Hkelkar and his disruptive friends should be watched upon and carefully checked by non partisan third-parties.
  • This little adventure brought me towards the limits of Wikipedia in its attempt at being a future recognized reference on some matters. I am deeply sorry to make this statement, but I am just expressing here my exact feelings.
  • User Hkelkar is disrupting any article he disagrees, and the problem is that Hkelkar's perspective is rather particular: for instance, a harmless NGO like HRW (and which is not specially pro-palestinian) is described by him as "a cabal of terrorists who should be hanged from lampposts" : [366]. As Hkelkar is deploying endless energy to running his cleansing agenda by touching every article around related to hot political events, India, and Islam, no surprise that a whole pan of Wikipedia is suddenly adopting a dark, "black shirt", "Robin Mac Arthur like" ([367]) coloration, as he is entirely devoted to putting forward an extremist flavor to all the subjects in which he intervenes; Hkelkar and friends run their disinformation industry by indulging into the intimidation tactics, by systematically reverting innumerable edits that are nevertheless perfectly neutral and referred. I have been experiencing such a behaviour on the Koenraad Elst page mainly, but the tactics is applied systematically, and knowingly, to an incredible amount of articles, in a perfectly determined operation plan. The intimidation tactics operates on many fronts: systematic blocking of users by abuse of the 3RR rule (with the help of his mates), harassment of many users and admins, sockpuppetry. I remember a question that I raised when I was under his attacks: for what reason does he do that ? What does he has to gain ? How a PhD student can take 100% of his time in endlessly realizing his agenda ?
A NPA request triggered by me: [369].
I follow the process and put a npa3 tag: [370].
He cancels the npa3 tag and says I am a troll: [371].
The decision: [372].
In another place, and after the final decision, he still writes I am a troll: [373].
He contests the decision by fulfilling it with his own commentaries, which triggers a reaction from the admin: [374]. You will notice this habit of replying directly inside someone's edits: a practice still used by Hkelkar up to this ArbCom case.
  • About CltFn's statement: the accusation of a supposedly harassing behaviour of BhaiSaab is unlikely here, since the referred link points to a case in which the "harassed" user was finally found guilty of sockpuppetry. So BhaiSaab action was justified and quite positive there. Moreover, CltFn's is probably engaging into personnal revenge here [375] [376] as he was blocked for sockpuppetry himself. Since this user has made contributions only on extremely controversal topics (see his contributions [377] which are almost 100% oriented into nasty islamophobic entries), I'm wondering what kind of farce is intented to mean his barnstar for contribution to islamic articles in Wikipedia.
  • About Hornplease interrogation on the "switching account" thing presented here [378], I guess the answer is quite simple: in the meantime, Netaji was found guilty of sockpuppetry with other users, so it was not very valuable for him to assume such an identity anymore, mostly for someone who is 100% engaged in a process of attacking other Wikipedia users.

TwoHorned 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

[edit] To Bakasuprman

I am answering to these items pointed out by Bakasuprman.

TwoHorned 11:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Bondego

  • My answer is here, in the /Workshop. To sum up, I wrote a "Controversy" section in the Koenraad Elst page, and some of the assertions put there come from two academics (I wrote the quotations for one of them, and another person quoted a Prof. at UCLA). A long discussion was started on these matters in the talk page, with discussion of the other references.
  • Moreover, in the paragraph above, I describe more precisely what happened in the Koenraad Elst article and discussion pages, along with the behaviour still adopted in that page by Bondego as this case it still going on. On that latter matter, I left the following message on Bondego's talk page.

TwoHorned 11:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

NinaEliza has provided here, along with new and updated interesting evidence about Hkelkar's continued disrupting behaviour, an hypothesis I've always thought of about Hkelkar, but I never dared to state formally, because these are things not easy to prove. I wish the ArbCom will examine that question, for instance by inspection of Hkelkar's contributions' timetable, and to answer the intriguing enigma whether such a timetable is compatible with the workload of a PhD student in Physics in a prestigious university such as UT at Austin. Since August 24, 2006 (the time his contributions began) up to today, Hkelkar's contributions are operated 7 days per week, night and day, with exceptions during the afternoons which correspond to a 8-hour break or so (for sleeping I suppose, and with one single exception on September 3)...

TwoHorned 14:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Mostlyharmless

I have only encountered this user in the context of two pages, but have found this users attitude towards wikipedia very difficult to deal with, more so than anyone I've encountered here.

[edit] Extremely abrasive

The user has made extremely POV remarks about an organisation he was going to edit [379]. This user then procedeeded to make significant one sided edits to the organisation s/he'd said should be hanged from lamposts. The user then called others libertarian fanatics [380] when edits were challenged. He then called the organisation 'small and shady'. The user accuses others of 'baseless tantrums and veiled ad hominum attacks'. The user seems to think that these are irrelevant [381], and that mentioning this is a personal attack [382]

[edit] Allegations of indophobia and anti-semitism

The user has also made poisonous allegations of Indophobia [383] towards editors after the neutrality of her/his edits were challenged, while making baseless allegations of corruption towards the subject in question. Uses allegations of anti-semitism [384] towards legitimate political opinions.

[edit] User seems to think that WP is a soapbox for contesting opinions

Of most concern to me is the fact that the user thinks that wikipedia works by people putting in information supporting one side and then having others NPOV it by putting in opposing information. This is reflected consistently in the users edits, see; here [385], and here [386]. This has been reflected consistently in discussion. [387], [388]. The user likes to claim that expressing extreme POV and one sided editing is not important if you can make your edits sound NPOV; here 'I certainly won't enter them into the article(s) unless I can source them in a neutral narrative, but HRW is definitely a cabal of terrorists who should be hanged from lampposts', and here [389], [390], [391], [392]. It is this behaviour that is of most concern to me, as it is the most damaging, and hardest to address.

[edit] Response to Hkelkar's allegations above

I removed the disputed section to the talkpage so that it could be discussed, and POV issues worked out [393]. It remains there, and I think that the proper thing to do is resolve the issues about neutrality (which have been raised by numerous others) on the talk page, rather than having POV attack piece in the article, which is the current situation. I don't think calling me a libertarian is very civil either (no disrespect intended to libertarians!)

The countercurrents piece Hkelkar charges with anti-semitism was only cited for one particular piece of evidence regarding India. When Hkelkar expressed dissatisfaction with the source, I found and cited the same information from the Hindu Times... the charge of anti-semitism was used to try and discredit useful and verified information.

[edit] Evidence presented by Hornplease

[edit] Hkelkar (talk · contribs) has been disruptive

I am limiting myself at the moment to this particular user, although in my opinion the greater threat to the project is from Bakasuprman (talk · contribs), who has more energy, and similar tactics, together with greater, often brazen incivility and aggression.

Let me make clear the methodology used by this editor, limiting myself to our mutual interaction, and not whatever he was up to elsewhere. I apologise to ArbCom for not using the common template, but I believe that this will present the data more effectively.

  1. Step into stable situations and edit, controversially, without explanation or reference to context: [394], [395]
  2. Quote mining: [396]. Struggling to find something that will confirm a previously held belief. This will subesequently be claimed to be a representative quote.
  3. Aggressive editing: [397]. Claiming alternative views are "anti-Hindu" - and all acceptable, peer-reviewed sources are "pseudo-secular". (Or Marxist. We will return to that.)
  4. An aggressive reaction to correction, consisting first of accusations of personal anti-Semitism, and being 'anti-Hindu', a neologism created by claiming an analogous history of persecution: [398], followed by a random accusations of puppetry [399] - or, frequently an accusation of vandalism (of which more later.)
  5. Mis-citing a reliable source, and then defending it deliberately obtusely in the hope that opposition will go away - consider my attempts at explanation of a single mis-cited and misquoted reference here [400], [401], [402], [403], [404] and [405], the last-named in response to an accusation of 'playing the fool'. I wasnt the only editor pointing out the same thing: [406].
  6. Insertion of deliberate inaccuracy to push a POV, caught here [407], as well as a complete lack of due diligence when removing statements or demanding citations: [408], [409]
  7. Dismissal of mainstream academic thought [410]. Note [[411] that the paper in question is India's paper of record, and the 'random' author in question is the tenured head of a department at UCLA, and a former Director of Studies at France's apex Social Sciences school, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, and the first Chair in Indian History and Culture at the University of Oxford. However he is dismissed as peripheral, and also elsewhere as a apologist for terrorists, which really could not be further from the truth.
  8. Next, if by some mischance a mis-cited, unrepresentative quote that has been dug up and given pride of place in some articles is removed as part of very necessary house-cleaning, a vandalism tag goes up and the oft-repeated statement "removal of sourced information is vandalism" is rolled out, as in this sequence of edit comments.[412], [413], [414], [415]. I point out the absurdity of that here, with a remark that the misquotation had been challenged weeks ago on the talkpage [416]. No noticeable change in behaviour results.
  9. And finally, if all else fails, call in your friends and simply declare that you are closing off further discussion. ("Mission accomplished", anyone?) [417], [418].

This is a small sample of this editor's behaviour. It is limited to his interaction with me, and to a few weeks, not his entire time on WP. I have ignored all his incivility, which was continual and grating, as something evident on any investigation. Note that the incivility was not only directed at other POV-pushers such as are attacked elsewhere on this project page, but also at those who manifestly had no POV to push. (But did, in Kelkar's paranoid opinion.) I am not quoting his hate-filled statements about India-Pakistan peace groups or prominent academics or major newspapers ("terrorist Islamist sympathisers ", "commies" and "pinko rags", or words to that effect), as their sheer quantity implies that they will be readily available to any investigator. I am not commenting further on sockpuppetry, except to note that if it is demonstrated that Subhas and Kelkar are the same person, I have a few more things to add.

These people are profoundly distressing. WP needs to take a stand now; its complacency about POV being eventually removed will not stand up in the face of well-organised, energetic editors gaming the system in this manner. If I have given up and left the project, anybody would who wasnt a POV-pusher themselves. Hornplease 09:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to HKelkar's comments about the above

  • I hope that someone will rework this page. HKelkar's comments below should be posted in his own section.
  • Please note the tone of Kelkar's response. This is representative of most of his interventions. "Misrepresented them egregiously", "attempt to prejudice", "promulgate his own prejudices." Civility and Kelkar have never been introduced.
  • About this, note he has missed the point I was making. This is representative; when something has been explained, he will choose to misunderstand it in order to go ad hominem ("much like a holocaust denier") and claim bias. As I said above, the fact is that Kelkar thought that a particular massacre should be described as genocidal. He went out to look for something that would do so. He eventually found one - out of several hundreds, and not available everywhere. This would then be presented as the mainstream, standard view, as his statement in this very RfArb indicates. Standard procedure for HKelkar and co. Thanks for the additional example!
  • This is not a diff [419] but a link to a talkpage section. It contains your standard accusation of anti-Hindu vandalism, as I discussed in the sentence in which I linked it. Yet you state "It has nothing to do with me and is clearly another attempt to prejudice the ArbComm."
  • I state that accusations of anti-Semitism are par for the course for you. I have observed you accuse TwoHorned of it on remarkably flimsy ground. I have read your comments on BhaiSaab's attitude to Israel above. In my opinion, it remains merely an accusation.
  • I am not sure how I have "lied through my teeth" on 6. I put in "what they saw" in the following sentence about Shivaji and Rana Pratap in their relations with Akbar and Aurangzeb: "celebrate kings for combating what they saw as foreign invasion and domination." This was attacked. I pointed out that Shivaji and the Marathas might conceivably view the Mughals as 'foreign'; but that Rana Pratap could not be said to represent all the Rajputs, as the majority fought with Akbar - as the very same article said. (I said "Pratap was fighting an army including large numbers of his fellow Rajputs under the banner of a fairly liberal ruler. Unless you want to remove the reference to Akbar right below?")
HKelkar follows that in the quoted section by claiming only Rajput mercenaries fought with Akbar, which is denied even in the scanty WP articles on Rana Pratap and Akbar. Akbar was a liberal ruler, who ceased to consider himself Muslim, had married into the Rajputs, and is and was generally considered Indian - indeed is claimed as Indian on the very same page. For Kelkar to argue against a mere qualifier ("what they saw as foreign") is a little silly, to say the very AGF-y least.
Below, he makes the statement "constitute a scholarly opinion, entirely citable on wikipedia for which there was near universal consensus (he was the only detractor". That Akbar was a foreigner is not "scholarly opinion". It is not "citable on Wikipedia", whatever that means. There is no "universal consensus" on WP or in real life. Indeed, for him to make that claim is pointless, as it is falsified two sentences below the changes he was making, which stated at the time that "Many Indians take pride in great Indian rulers such as Ashoka and Akbar...".
Note that having to make this sort of lengthy defence of obvious things is par for the course when one is dealing with HKelkar.
  • About my 'due diligence' accusation, please note that a citation had been provided, a reference to a prominent newsmagazine. Kelkar demanded to "see" a back issue of a major Indian magazine not archived on the web. He did not attempt to confirm if the quote so cited was a commonly known quote - as I said, he didn't even Google it. What he expected was the response "it is not archived on the web". His response to that is a matter of speculation, but I fancy the reader will have an idea or two.
Not a non-issue, as he says. Not an immaterial post, as he says. Did I mention he was aggressive and uncivil?
  • About no. 7, I have no idea what he is saying. I do know it doesn't constitute a response or an explanation or an apology for the evidence. Oh, and I go around defaming people egregiously. Brilliant. Thanks for that.
  • About no. 8, I am not denying they are mainstream sources. I do deny that in one case, they "reflect the text" accurately. Please do read the section on the talkpage where this is discussed. [420]. This discussion, which HKelkar participates in, but does not complete, is prior to his reinsertion of the quotes. Accusation count here: bad faith, vandalism. In case you haven't been counting, that takes the total to either twelve or fourteen so far in his brief response. (Sometimes the accusations run into each other.)
  • To round it off, in the tradition of this RfArb, he attacks my own behaviour in the past, although that isnt really the subject. See below for that discussion.

[edit] Discussion with Kelkar about RfA

However, since he brings that RfA up:

[421] I say that I am "suspicious" as I have not heard the phrase used before WP. (Unlike, say, anti-Semitic.) I avoid saying it is a neologism at this point, though I suspect so. How does HKelkar represent this diff below? Is it perhaps a misrepresentation? I invite the reader to guess.
HKelkar then runs a Google book or scholar search for 'anti-Hindu' and quotes the first few names on it, as

claiming academic authority. [422].

(Seriously.) When the main thrust of the argument is that of course the phrase is used as an adjective (benzoyl peroxide is 'anti-acne' cream) that does not itself mean that it deserves to be the article title. (Anti-acne as an article rather than "cures for acne".) This was the context in which I stated that several hits will of course come up for it, and give an example of a representative occasion when it is used, together with 'anti-majority rule". Whether this consists of intellectual dishonesty is again, an exercise for the reader. Whether an editor can take this sort of continual attack day after day about points made repeatedly and deliberately misunderstood, is a question I can answer. (No.) Hornplease 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

About TwoHorned's post above: can specific details be removed please? I dont think casual visitors need to know Kelkar's real name, for example, unless he reveals it. (It means his phone number is readily accessible, for one thing.)Hornplease 11:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That was his intention all along.Trying to reveal my information without my consent. It does constitute harrassment and I will take steps accordingly. If I receive any death threats or whatever then I will report it to the authorities. Of course, I will not involve wikipedia on this matter.Hkelkar 11:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
About the Google book search: You're quite right. I apologise unreservedly. I was misled by Kelkar claiming credit for it below: "which I proved again by citing academic sources". I didnt realise that that statement meant "reading off the European names from someone else's Google book search." My bad. Though I would like to demur that that makes me an 'established liar' etc, etc. (Probably because of my well known pro-me bias.)Hornplease 11:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If you read the AfD more caqrefully, I cited more reliable sources like the infinity foundation. You didn;t mention that, establishing that you deliberately skew posts to mislead admins, hoping that they will be too lazy to check the facts or the details. If that is the case, then well, you've won. Anyone of goodwill should hope that the ArbComm is more thorough than that, given your propensity to lie through your teeth.Hkelkar 11:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I didnt need to mention that, as it wasnt brought up in your statement. I supposed you realised it wouldnt be worth quoting as a reliable source, I suppose, given the diff [[423]] you quoted below, which certainly doesnt mention it. The Infinity Foundation is not an academic body. It's run by the well-known right-winger Rajiv Malhotra. Walled garden, anyone?. In any case, it was mentioned in the AfD - by the very editor who ran the Google search - that the phrase 'anti-Hindu' seems to be primarily used by such organisations, if at all. I didnt think it was necessary to overwhelm ArbComm with evidence against you. Thank you for so religiously bringing it up. Hornplease 12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No need. The truth is there for all to see.Characterizing Rajiv Malhotra in this way is a violation of WP:BLP. I could just as easily say that Vijay Sharma is a "left-winger".You can also say that terms like "Anti-Christian" is used by Christian right-wingers, but I notice a rather large article on "Anti-Christian" on wikipedia (and almost completely unsourced to boot). Another double standard that hornplease exploits in his campaign to get me banned.Hkelkar 12:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Plus, notice how the AfD was overwhelmingly in consensus to keep, despite hrnplease and TerryJ-Ho's desperate attempts to get it deleted. It didn;t work. Are all the users there my "sockpuppets"? I'll bet that will be the topic of the next RfA. All the users who voted keep in anti-Hindu AfD are sockpuppets of Hkelkar! In fact, why not ban all users who ever supported my edits? They are all Hkelkar's sockpuppets. Waah!Hkelkar 12:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, note (a) the tenor of the discussion from Kelkar's end and (b) the fact that he cannot let things go, even after everything has been said. Saying someone is right-wing is not a violation of BLP. In this case, it is relevant in the context of that specific AfD; I explained that context above.
Note also the paranoia: "campaign to get me banned." I have not initiated this, or even instigated it. I have never directly communicated - or never in my memory - with the initiator of this RfArb. I have in the past stated my unwillingness to take bureaucratic action of any sort. I have never sent Kelkar for an RfC, or to AN/I, or to PAIN. Yet I have been running a "campaign", in submitting evidence in response to a request from the ArbComm.
The AfD in question was overwhelmingly to keep. Most of the keep votes said the content had POV problems, but was broadly cited and the subject was notable. I agreed with that summation, but suggested a move, as the title was of doubtful provenance. This was stated several times by me on the RfA page: for example, [424]. Yet the suggestion that I voted to delete ("desperately") is repeated. The case just keeps on being made.
Kelkar, at this point, I suggest you stop trying to respond to all this and digging yourself in further, and get yourself someone from the Association of Member's Advocates before going any further. Hornplease 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Notice that both hornplease and TwoHorned (similar sounding names, I wonder...) are using the same tactic, using my political views against me. All wikipedians have political views. Yes, I am a Jewish so I believe that Israel has a right to exist.Yes I am opposed to Islamism or Osamaism and yes, I do sympathize with Hindus and Hindu culture. All my edits to the articles in question are sourced and attributed appropriately and I have maintained a neutral narrative in all of my edits. So why this witch hunt against me?I have not violated any wikipedia norms when it came to my persistent edits. If there were any sources that had legitimate issues that were raised I eventually conceded, though I have a right to debate them.What these users plan to do is skew the case against me, get the ArbCom to ban me, then unilaterally delete all my edits, all of which (the ones that stand now) follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. That is all I have to say regarding this matter for now. I suggest that hornplease's inappropriate rants (and my responses) be moved to the talk page where it belongs. Not here.Hkelkar 12:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the (a) crass suggestion of puppetry (b) suggestion of bias (c) suggestion that I have 'plans'. Your political views are not germane to the issue. I have not brought them up at all in this discussion. I agree with the suggestion that some of this be moved to the talkpage; The question of who 'ranted' and who responded, must, I am afraid, be something of a disagreement between us. Hornplease 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Hkelkar's counter-accusations

I would like to point out that I write a point-by-point discussion of Ms. Rosser's letter towards the end of the first linked diff.

The second link in HKelkar's accusations is one for which I am amused to admit I have no reference handy whatsoever at this point. June. What was lying on my desk in June? Perhaps I can check my library records. And ask my friends what I have borrowed from them in the past and to check under "Ayodhya" in the index.

I dont mean to be flippant. It was an error; whatever I was relying on for that information was not put in the article at the time - Subhash Bose/Trident was making about a hundred edits a day at this point, all over controversial articles. An object lesson in sourcing things the moment you out them in, and in the difficulties that having editors like this create at all times. I'll continue to look for where I could have got that from, but it may take some time - it was six months ago. I note, however, the fascinating fact that HKelkar managed to find this little gem, in the middle of a difficult article months before he started editing on WP. I may have to revise my opinions about whether or not he is Subhash Bose, since the latter was definitely involved with the article at the time. Since we're there, and Trident and Kelkar may be the same person, I refer you to this edit, made in the course of manic revision to the Ayodhya page: [425]. Fascinating, in the light of the accusations against TwoHorned elsewhere on this page.

About the various links to the discussion with Bondego, I have nothing to add to the specific points that Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) and I made on that page, and that Dbachmann (talk · contribs) made on that page and on diffs linked from that page.

Does the long - and relatively civil, in spite of the accusations of Eurocentrism thrown at yours truly - discussion bear out HKelkar's interpretation of what was happening? Was "my argument shredded" and was I "increasingly desperate". Perhaps a matter of opinion.

But I specifically state that I do not hold "Hindu and Hindu-sympathetic writers to a different standard" than I do "Muslim or Leftist sympathetic authors". I say On contemporary Indian politics and religious conflicts I refer the writer ... to Romila Thapar, Sunil Khilnani, Ashutosh Varshney, Atul Kohli, Ashis Nandy, Mushirul Hasan, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Srkar, Bipin Chandra, Sumit Ganguly, Yogendra Yadav, Sumantra Bose, Dharma Kumar and Sudipta Kaviraj. All these individuals, most of whom are still active, have published multiple peer-reviewed articles and books, are tenured at major universities in India and abroad and have studied in India and through the Indian educational system. I add that this is a list that I have come up with off the top of my head. A little rooting around the faculties of major Indian, American, English and European universities will produce a few dozen more. This clearly indicates that I have one bar to cross for everyone: multiple peer-reviewed articles and books, or tenure at major universities in India or abroad. Romila Thapar, perhaps India's best-known living historian, is in particular attacked above; the rediff.com link Hkelkar kindly provides mentions a short set of her qualifications, at a time when she was being attacked for holding a honorarary Chair at the Library of Congress. Among other things, it states She has honorary doctorates from the University of Chicago, the Institute National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales in Paris, the University of Oxford and the University of Calcutta. If this isnt the mainstream, heaven knows what is. For an amusing counter to the petition mentioned therein, note [426], and the number of well-known academics whose names are appended.


Did I "engage in verbal sparring"? If I do, which is an open question, what is certain is that I do not wish to abandon civility, and I can only manage with someone - like Bondego - open to a discussion without making things particularly personal. Choosing to discuss difficult NPOV and RS questions is precisely what we need.

Do I "have a clear pattern of bias and double standards"? Sheesh. See above.

Hornplease 07:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) is an extremely disruptive editor

Using the new guidelines on disruptive editing.

An editor is disruptive when

  • An editor is tendentious, where
    • the tendentious editing involves:
  1. A history of violation of 3RR; this of course is true, and does not need repeating. Admins will have better access to this history, particularly BLNguyen. (Note: I am not saying a history of being blocked. The standards of a 'revert' seem to be looser here than they should be, as BLNguyen points out above.)
  2. Repeated undoing of the 'vandalism' of others. Particularly valid in this editor's case. No change in an article made from a different POV is anything other than 'vandalism'. See diffs [427]; and on my page [428], which was a bit of shocker. This does not include the countless instances of edit summaries that state 'rvv' or 'stop vandalising articles' etc, and the oft repeated [429].
  3. Reminding people about WP:AGF: [430].
  4. Accusations or suspicions that other editors are "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts": in this case it takes the shape of a reworking of WP:RS. Consider [431] ( a quick google search of the names will establish which sources are reliable); [432], to make it clearer; [433] and [434].
  5. Challenging the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it: I wish. More normally, first [435] (marked minor) or [436] (ditto) and then [437] (marked "that was not a compromise in any way").
  6. Citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support the interpretation or the inferences drawn: Where, oh where, to start? [438], where another editor comments "the issue is not source, but interpretations of sources. several of your reverted passages have no support in given links". Those readily available at the moment include: [439]; [440]; [441]; [442]; [443]. I lose it a little here; and am finally moved to write this. Note these are a few occasions when I have called him on it; that is a fraction of the times he has done it to me, and a smaller fraction of the times that he will have done it to articles I havent run into him on.
  7. Repeating the same argument over and over again: well, for just one example, the entire history of the Talk:Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia. Also User:Bakasuprman/Archive8#Categorisation. No pointing posting diffs. Have a look.
    • tendentious editing requires assigning undue weight to a single aspect of a subject: [444]; [445]; and many more, but I grow tired, and wish to move on.
    • tendentious editing wishes to Right Great Wrongs: Too obvious. Someone else can fill in the blanks. Zora (talk · contribs), perhaps? Her remarks.
  • the editor ignores WP:V and WP:OR: Consider first the entire set of miscitations given above. Also, for a representative example of synthesis, see here.
  • Rejects Community Input: OK, he thinks I'm biased. But then consider [446], from the original writer of the category, whom he has appealed to for support. And [447], from someone who had agreed with him in the CfD for the cat in question. No effect whatsoever.
  • Drives away productive editors: Worked on me. As I said, I've given up on WP thanks to this guy. Also, note T. Anthony (talk · contribs)'s response above [[448]; he couldnt get out of the discussion soon enough. If required, I will detail his numerous low-level and high-level violations of WP:NPA, WP:Civil, etc. I have not mentioned a single one of those above. Believe me, there were many.

Further evidence will be provided on request or when this headache goes away.

Given the diffs above, Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) satisfies WP's definition of a disruptive editor. Hornplease 08:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

May I say in advance that my response to Bakasuprman's consequent Righteous Indignation, Terrific Fury and Copious Self-Justifications will be minimal. For health reasons. Hornplease 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Bakasuprman (talk · contribs)'s counter-accusations

As stated, I will not make a point-by-point rebuttal. Fortunately the quality of the accusations do not make it strictly necessary. A good job has been done of framing an argument out of the limited material I had provided, but, naturally, some misapprehensions have crept in, and some sleight of hand was required. I would be happy to set them straight.

The 'incivil' section starts off with diffs to Talk:Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia and related pages, which I had already linked to. I will remind the reader that my assessment was agreed with by Aksi_great (talk · contribs), who had created the cat, and T. Anthony (talk · contribs), who polices other similar cats. Also note that I use the words 'public ceremony' in the same sense in which the word 'public' is used in public sector. Perhaps the words 'state ceremony' will be more evocative. In either case, participation in such a ritual is insufficient to count as public self-identification. Participation in the state rituals of the Church of England did not mean that Isaac Newton self-identified as a believer in the Trinity. That is the nature of public religion, and coronations among them. This was the point I made at length. When I believed that it was not getting through, I went and asked for a third, and then a fourth opinion. This was the best I could do for WP:BLP, then a very new policy, under the circumstances.

Moving on, this diff [449] is supposed to contain "an attack on another user" and an implication that "we all were stupid". I cant find an attack on a user. Merely a response to the very loaded statement [450] "Indian passport doesnt make you Indian. Respect for Indian culture makes you one." To this I reply that many Indians would dispute that statement, and express my puzzlement that a user who chooses to publicly self-identify as English would choose to make that remark, as it would create a contradiction. Oh, and most certainly do not imply that anyone is stupid for talking on SlimVirgin's talk page. I clearly state that you were all, Terry-J-Ho and HKelkar included, humorless.

Most other diffs presented need no further explanation; I particularly love the one that is presented as evidence of my incivility that begins with a plea for civility, and in which the objectionable phrase is "Also, dont lose your shirt. If you have put work into editing the article, and your edits are sourced and NPOV, the work will not be lost." Brilliant.

The 'get a blog' statement took me aback at first, as it certainly sounds most inappropriate. Fortunately, a look at the diffs clarifies matters: The user, who was no longer a newbie, but it emerged was still feeling his way around WP policy, posted to the talk page of that article enormously long pieces about how Indian consciousness depended on more than the countours of outmoded nationalisms that political scientists studied. There were paragraphs on the talk page about the Indian army and computers and the user's family, who were diplomats. When I came across the anger in such statements as .."This is not an article about what Indians can feel proud about" version of Indian nationalism is an absurdity that I'll make sure will not happen, at least not on Wikipedia. It's just a fact.. and the desire to put in statements like The number of IT engineers is still greater than the Indian National Army and the economic upsurge has made a greater difference to the conciousness of an Indian than the Two nation theory and AIT put togather., I felt that the user needed to be reminded of WP:NOT. If the sentence ..But, fortunately, that is irrelevant, for, it is also a violation of WP:OR, and thus has no place on wikipedia. If you wish to discuss these issues, thats what blogs are for, and I urge you to express yourself there... is a violation of WP:Civil in that context, then I express my surprise. Again, read the whole talkpage. Or skim it.

in another diff that follows, we are told that I call Bakasuprman 'churlish'. ...avoid words like 'uninsightful' and 'obstinate'. Makes you appear churlish, which I am sure is an impression you do not wish to leave...." is a direct quote. I think no further explanation is necesary. And here we are told I call HKelkar 'temperamental': ..Could the fact that you have been asked to justify your edits on a few pages have caused you to make that statement? Remember, any edit you make, you should be prepared to defend without losing your temper...

More serious accusations:

'Misrepresentation'. I look forward to this; as this is a serious charge, I will attempt to at last refer to each accusation made in turn.

I quoted Khajuraho on a particular page as an example of an argument often raised as a defence of MF Husain, of the kind that I wished to keep off an unrelated page. I specifically said that I did not have an opinion one way or the other. I am uncertain how that is 'misrepresenting Khajuraho'. Bakasuprman happily came up with the other side of the argument [451]. This was precisely what I personally had wanted to avoid (getting into an argument on the talkpage about something at a tangent to the article subject.) This was also not a reply to the point I had raised, which was that there were points on both 'sides', and that introducing one side on the article page would lead to the other being introduced at some point, to the detriment of the article, since the subject was tangential. [452] I indicated I was uninterested in getting into an argument because I didn't want an argument, and that there existed the possibility of an argument (currently on the talkpage, but hypothetically on the article page) was precisely my point. I note that Bakasuprman thinks that Nidhshinghal had 'enough' to 'prove' something or the other. Nids himself was more reasonable. [453].

I'm not sure what the accusation is at this diff that is linked above [454].

The Anti-Hindu VfD is discussed by me at length in conversation with Kelkar. [455] is quoted by Bakasuprman as an example of me holding on to the claim that the phrase was common mainly among extremist groups after it had been falsified by HKelkar. Firstly, that was the first time the claim was made. Secondly, as I discuss above, in my opinion, HKelkar did not falsify it.

The JLS case is brought up again as misrepresentation this time; I refer you to my remarks earlier.

And my violating WP:BLP in this diff? [456] How? In heaven's holy name, how?

On my 'accusations':

Err. nothing to say here. Please do read the linked diffs. If possible, also read the context in the pages. Finally, re-read the commentary provided on the diffs by Bakasuprman above.

On 'vandalism': This basically refers to my efforts to keep the Brinda Karat page from descending into a long discussion of a single statement, which is a minimal part of that person's career; there was a serious lack of balance in how the subject was approached. See another editor's view on [457] Bakasuprman's claim that the vast majority of Indians had a particular opinion. About my use of popups, it was an unfortunate error; I myself frequently come down hard on people for reverting without an edit summary. Note, however the sequence of edits before that: [458] by Baka, marked 'minor'. A revert [459] by Soman (talk · contribs) with the comment "OR?". Baka, a week later, does not address the fact that the controversial word is uncited but makes further edits [460] that further distort political reality - describing members of a party in competition with another as 'firmly tied' to each other. Both that and the earlier word 'most' remain unsourced. The single 'source' that is added is for an additional quote that adds nothing to the story. One week later I check in on the article and discover this. As the controversial statements remain unsourced, and it's a living person biography, I revert it. I dont think there's any mystery here.

A final word. Bakapurman says "his attempts to try and bully me backfired with him deciding there was no market for his POV on wikipedia". I'd just like to say that when I expressed concern to other editors about POV in India articles and would ask for help they said - BLNguyen in this case - "don't try to fight the POV-pushers by yourself." At times, it appeared that nobody else was around. I stuck it out a lot longer than a lot of people; there were names in edit histories as three months ago that you don't see any more. Towards the end, all my time on WP was taken up by these long discussions where I tried to maintain my civil demeanour as best possible in the face of some quite outrageous rudeness, the kind of thing that would cause one to terminate conversations in the real world. Little or no actual editing was getting done. When I realised that even the long discussions were fruitless if even after them policy was simply ignored, and nobody would step in ("Oh, that just happens in India-related articles"), then one might as well leave.

Bakasuprman repeatedly brings up his new articles and his 'DYK's. (Frankly, I don't even know what the latter are, or if they're difficult to do.) Let me make it clear that I have always thought he can be a productive editor. In my early interaction with him - and I seem to recall that I was almost the first person to write on his talkpage - I invested much time in discussing with him where he might be going wrong; I invested this effort precisely because of his productiveness. I made a similar effort with Subhash Bose (or Trident or Kelkar). Many editors - Nirav (Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs)), for example - had similar early histories and have since become pillars of the project. I clearly failed with this editor, but cannot see how anyone could have succeeded.

It won't be the first time in my memory a productive editor is, on the whole, a threat to the project because of his tendentiousness and disruptiveness. This guy's just subtler and more energetic than most of the others.

Thank you for your time, and I apologise for my emotional little peroration.

Hornplease 12:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


A few recent diffs have been added to the counter-accusations by Bakasuprman above; they link to User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington#From HKelkar.27s arb., a continuation of a discussion with another editor from the Workshop page. I urge the reader to glance at both sides' comments in their entirety; again, I fail to see how it qualifies as evidence against me.
Additional accusations have been made about my role on pages such as Sajjan Kumar. No diffs were provided. A cursory look at the history of the pages will explain this reticence.
Also, it appears that Bakasuprman has both here and on the Evidence page inserted a defence against accusations of tendentiousness by stating that WP:DE cannot apply to actions committed before it became a guideline. That is something for the ArbComm to decide; I would imagine that, like other WP guidelines, it serves as an identification procedure, and thus is applicable for the purposes of analysis of a user's editing pattern. The same edits apparently classify otherwise uninvolved editors (Aksi_great (talk · contribs) and T. Anthony (talk · contribs)) whom I quote above as additional community input as 'POV-pushers', which is, I fear, characteristic. Hornplease 09:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Xiaopo

Personally, I don't think the accusations of sockpuppetry are such a big issue, since as has been pointed out, User:Shiva's Trident (who is supposed to be User:Hkelkar's sockpuppet, or vice versa) hasn't been editing for some time, and there's no evidence that one of the accounts was used to circumvent a block on the other—assuming that they are sockpuppets (all the evidence presented so far has been circumstantial, and IMHO fairly weak). I think this is really about edit disputes and interactions between users, and that's what I'll focus on here. I haven't had much interaction with any of the parties here excepting Hkelkar and Bakasuprman, so this will mostly focus on my encounters with them. Nevertheless, I note that users on both "sides" have long block logs, that most articles they get involved in seem to devolve into edit-warring, protection, and general messiness, and that many people have shown an inordinate fascination with (and skepticism of) Hkelkar's Jewishness, which, IMHO, is inappropriate.

Furthermore, I've seen some improvement in Hkelkar's behavior, and he's done good work, especially on Poverty in Pakistan. I hope this whole mess will encourage him to devote his energies to such things.

Essentially, what I'm trying to show here is that Hkelkar and Bakasuprman are difficult to work with. I realize that's a rather vague assertion, but I'm using it as a blanket term for inter alia reverting legitimate edits (and refusing to discuss them), labelling sources and users they disagree with as "Marxist" or "terrorist-affiliated," and taking gratuitous potshots at political views they disagree with. I'll take these in order. Onward, then!

[edit] Hkelkar (talk · contribs) and Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) are revert-happy

  1. On 27 September 2006, in the article Indo-Aryan migration, I changed the words "many scholars" to "most scholars," [461] since that's what the reference given for that statement actually says (and it's quoted in the footnote). Bakasuprman reverted, using popups. [462] I'm not sure what caused him/her to think it was a bad-faith edit, but it wasn't.
  2. Here, I direct readers to the edit history of Indo-Aryan migration, specifically the edits from 29 September 2006 to 3 October 2006, which will make things clearer when looking at the diffs. [463] On 29 September, I made a few minor edits, consisting of adding a {{verify source}} tag, correcting the grammar of a sentence, and expanding an abbreviation [464] and [465]. Bakasuprman reverted [466], with the edit summary "rv OR." After Crculver reverted back to my edit, Bakasuprman reverted again. Finally, when s/he was reverted a second time, s/he edited a sentence which referred to determining the date of the Veda by using the Zend Avesta (sourced to a book by JP Mallory), changing a "Therefore" to "According to Marxist historians" and marking his/her edit as minor [467]. S/He then got involved in a revert war, and after two reverts, Hkelkar stepped in, reverting back to Bakasuprman's version, with the edit summary "rv. The Avestan assertion is made by Romila Thapar, who is a self-confessed Marxist." [468] Again, the section in question had nothing to do with Romila Thapar. Hkelkar was reverted (and reverted back, in turn) two more times, and when it was pointed out that the sentence in question was sourced to JP Mallory, he reverted a third time [469], with the edit summary "[Mallory] is a contributor to Marxist periodicals." However, he was reverted again by Crculver, and made no more edits concerning that statement, having exhausted his three reverts. Then, two days later, on 3 October, Bakasuprman reverted back to Hkelkar's version again, in the process removing another grammar correction [470]. However, s/he was reverted, and that was the end of that nasty episode. What I'm trying to show from it is that these two editors were far too enthusiastic when reverting, using popups and marking controversial content changes as minor, and getting into revert wars and making unfounded assertions against a scholar whose work they didn't like when challenged.

[edit] Hkelkar (talk · contribs) makes unnecessarily combative statements concerning people he disagrees with

For instance, he complained to Vkvora2001 that his views on Poverty in India are "fodder for Pakistani ISI agents and other liberal socialist India-haters and Indophobes" [471] and then mused that he ought to start an article on the "Self-hating Indian" [472].

Furthermore, he shows a propensity for labelling groups that disagree with him as "terrorist fronts" or "controversial." For instance, he added a phrase calling Friends of South Asia "a controversial group mired in accusations of being an anti-Hindu group," with the edit summary "rv. Context is needed per precedent with White Nationalist orgs on wikipedia" [473].

Indeed, my first encounter with Hkelkar was when I made a few edits to Californian Hindu textbook controversy [474]. Hkelkar repeatedly reverted using popups, and objected to my adding a link to FOSA's website to illustrate the article's claim that they disagreed with some of the edits [475]. There were of course already links to the HEF illustrating which of the edits they agreed with, but Hkelkar asserted on various talk pages that it wasn't the same thing, since FOSA "is known to have terrorist connections" (citing the Wikipedia article on Friends of South Asia—which says no such thing—as evidence) [476] and insisted that while the Hindu American Foundation's website was a reliable source because it was a registered non-profit organization, FOSA wasn't because it "has Pakistani members who are affiliated with terrorism." [477] The discussion on the talk page is worth reading, where FOSA is accused of "pure hate speech" and it's claimed that they're being investigated by the Department of Homeland Security. His comments above that forced censorship is a "common practice among libertarians" is a good case in point: it really only serves to bring more heat than light to the discussion.

[edit] Evidence presented by Freedom skies

I would once again like to express my personal opinion that Hkelkar and Shiva's trident are two different people. I have worked with both of them and have awarded a barnstar to Hkelkar due to the excellent quality of his recent contributions to articles related to the Indian subcontinent.

The evidence submitted to ban the user thus far has been, again in my opinion, inconclusive and weak. This is keeping in mind that HKelkar has stated that he knows Shiva's Trident in real life. As for the cases of being combative and acting improperly, editors like Terry j-Ho and BhaiSaab have made inappropriate comments as well, which have been documented above. When one speaks things like this and this and goes on to speak in extremely tasteless tone that "Evidence showing that Hkelkar is a Hindutva POV posting machine" [478] they hardly have the moral authority to advocate banning a user for being combative.

My interaction with Hkelkar has been good and User:Bakasuprman, another editor who has come under fire here, helped me against a sockpuppet which had been giving me a hard time. [479] In my personal opinion again, users getting banned due to nominations by other users who are'nt angels themselves is extremely heavy handed action. Especially when the user nominated for a ban (in this case, HKelkar) has excellent articles to his credit and has shown passion to devote time and work actively on wikipedia. Thank You.

Freedom skies 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Aksi great

[edit] User:Hkelkar and User:Subhash bose/User:Shiva's Trident are the same person

This point has already been mentioned by some users. I will not repeat what has already been said.

  • Hkelkar and Shiva's Trident (ST) started editing using the same ip. Much has already been said about their universities, isps etc.
  • Hkelkar and use the same email id. I will not put the evidence linking the 2 here as it has already been given to the arbs. Hkelkar refutes this by saying that he had run out of names to use, but I leave it up to the arbs to decide how credible they think the explanation is.
  • In this chat when Srikeit asks Hkelkar what his IP is - he replies with "kaise pataa lagaoun?" which translates to "how do i find that out" in hindi. ST goes on to teach Hkelar how to do so. But we see a totally different form of Hkelkar here who goes on to explain things about computers that only advanced users of computers would say.
  • Above all, Hkelkar and ST edit the same set of pages. As Hkelkar has already said - "we converse(d) frequently off wikipedia about wikipedia articles. He was not doing so well with trying to clear them of bias and that's when I stepped in to help.I solicited Bakaman's help on the recommendation of Trident." That looks like a violation of wikipedia policy on meatpuppetry.

All this adds to a pretty strong case against Hkelkar. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by NinaEliza

I first encountered Hkelkar when I responded to an RFC on the RFC:Articles page concerning Indian Buddhist Movement. The RFC was written by Hkelkar[[480]].

I read the entire article, the entire talk page, and posted a lengthy point-by-point analysis entitled "Response to RFC"[[481]]. The article in a nutshell concerns the occurence, particularly in October of this year, of a large number of Indians who have converted to Buddhism and taken the "22 vows", which were first used by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The 22 vows unequivably rejects Hinduism in the vow-taking person's life. This page was created by User Nat Krause in April of this year, and was subsequently edited by several different people.

I have never posted on HKelkar's talk page, nor has he on mine. I have deliberately never addressed HKelkar personally on the Indian Buddhist Movement talk page. He has addressed me personally exactly twice. I am basing my assertions entirely on Hkelkar's behavior in edits to Indian Buddhist Movement, and on Hkelkar's interactions towards other users on the talk page for Indian Buddhist Movement.

To date, I have never edited this article, though I would like to. I feel that this is indeed a very notable topic [edit: it turns out that this link was bad-my apologies. Please see here instead [[482]].I also feel that's it's very important to have a fair, well-written page on this. I'm in the process of getting some of these books, and will not edit until I do so.

[edit] User Hkelkar is a Disruptive Editor

Hkelkar made his first edit to the Indian Buddhist Movement article on September 19th of this year. That day he made 10 major and/or extremely controversial edits, all in the span of 21 minutes[[483]]. Since they are all in a row, you can jump from one edit to the next using this single link. If you choose not to, let me say that among his edits are two POV tags, two WEASEL tags, and the addition of the phrase "anti-hindu" throughout the article. He posted nothing on the talk page for this article at that time (CORRECTION: it is unclear from the diffs and page history when the talk page quote below was actually made- either the 19th or the 20th). The note on his very first edit to the page is this:

"removed unsourced POV. Keep out hate speech or I WILL file an RFA)"

On October 20th (the next day),User Dhammafiend made two edits after this[[484]][[485]]. Hkelkar reverted the article using a popup[[486]]. On the same day, he posted this on the Indian Buddhist Movement talk page:

This article is, as it stands, complete hatemongering nonsense. It is full of unsourced rubbish and weasel words. I am warning all parties that if they persist in using wikipedia as a soapbox to express false views and tout hate-speech I will bring admins into this matter and file a full request for arbitration. Please cooperate to build an objective and useful article that presents the facts without POV.Hkelkar 07:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Buddhist_revival"

The post above is HKelkar's second post to the talk page. This is his first post[[487]]. Since his second post, Hkelkar has very rarely deviated from the tone above on the talk page. In fact, I feel that by far his most "Wiki" (polite, assuming good faith, etc) post has been directed towards myself[[488]]. That statement, however,was in response to what appearedto be a show of support for his actions. It also followed this statement[[489]], and is therefore rather contradictory. This is the sum total of our interaction.

He has also very rarely deviated from the behavior described above in his editing. He has made 17 reversions to this article since September 20. Three instances were "edit wars" that came just shy of 3RR. After two reversions, he removes the content manually. The most recent evidence of this reversion process are also the most recent changes to this article - from November 12 to November 18[[490]]

Currently, Hkelkar almost immediately reverses the edits of all editors -except one from Nat Krause (who changed the title from Indian Buddhist Movement to Indian Buddhist Revival) - all without any discussion first. He labels good-faith edits (irrespective of their merits) as vandalism. His actions in response to my analysis (ostensibly written at his request) were minimal, ands it's highly debatable whether or not these edits were done in good faith. Furthermore, his expressed interpretation of my RFC response (which is also minimal)is extremely selective.

In my opinion, his behaviour has resulted in several editors (on both sides of various debates) leaving the project. This is evidenced by the fact that not a single editor responded to my RFC statement until I went to four editor's talk pages, informed them that I had made a response, and specifically invited them to comment on it. I chose the four editors because they appeared to be least disruptive, yet were on both sides of the debate. To date, only two of the four editors I invited have responded, and none of the other editors who had previously been active on the page have posted anything, save for Dhammafriend, and more recently, SriLankaBuddhist.

[edit] User HKelkar uses popup reversions inappropriately

"*Statement made above "Both users have frequently use popups to revert the non-vandalistic edits of users that they are having content disputes with. See their contributions as this is commonly done by both of them."'' My response: A bad practice that I stopped after I learned that you were not supposed to use popups except for vandalism"

The above quote is from Hkelkar's Evidence on this page.

I invite you to consider whether or not this edit[[491]] or this edit[[492]] are good faith edits or acts of vandalism.

These reversions happened on November 12 and November 17, respectively.

[edit] Indian Buddhist Revival/Movement: Hkelkar Edits and Discusses in Bad Faith

It is my strong belief that user Hkelkar actually came to this article in bad faith. The below passage represents Hkelkar's third post to the discussion page for Indian Buddhist Revival/Movement in it's entirety. I have bolded certain passages and phrases in order to highlight and/or discuss further.

It continues to amaze me how these "self-styled Buddhists" tout ideals of Dhamma, Ahimsa and Shanti (faith, nonviolence and peace) and then go right around and express the most bilious (and, quite frankly, mentally diseased) hate and bile against millions of Hindus who are perfectly happy with their faith and who make no attacks on Buddhism, and, point of fact, REVERE the Buddha as a saint. In Bihar, there are millions of HINDUS who visit the tree of enlightenement to pray to it, and these "Buddhists" attack them. These people pervert the teachings of Buddha and exploit the political situation in India to fester bigotry and hate against Hindus in order to further their ambition. I'm sorry if this sounds polemical,but these people frighten me more than the Islamic terrorists who bombed trains and murder women and children. It's like those so-called "Buddhists" who applauded Zia-ul-Haq when he ordered the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus in Bangladesh and then went right around "Ahimsa" and publicly declared that Hindus do not deserve the same rights as others because they are "animals who deserve to get slaughtered". I appeal to these chauvinists to keep their views to themselves and not SOIL wikipedia with hate-speech and nonsense. This article has the most WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations that I have seen on wikipedia so far and statements that, if made in countries in Europe (with stringent hate-speech laws) would land them in prison like David Irving.I am NOT a Hindu and have no partisan bias when I say this, but there is no ideological difference between the touters of anti-Hindu hate and Joseph Goebbels, who demanded that millions of my people be shoved into ovens and murdered.Hkelkar 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[[493]]

In regards to the final bolded statement, I invite the arbiration committee to consider the article as it stood before Hkelkar made ANY edits[[494]].

This is how the article stood the day Hkelkar posted this statement, and after he had edited the page[[495]. Please note in particular the addition of the following phrase in the section entitled "22 Vows" by Hkelkar. The bolded word is my edit:

These 22 vows are important as they evoke traditional Anti-Hindu stereotypes and canards about the caste system as part of Hinduism. It illustrates the anti-Hindu nature of the movement.

The first bolded statement ("mentally diseased" hate and bile), in my opinion, is not a personal attack per se but a general attack on the credibility of more than one editor. Furthermore, I personally find the use of this characterization to discredit the work of other editors to be extremely offensive with respect to my own status as a mental health consumer.

I feel the rest of the post is self-explanatory in it's support of my belief. If not, I would be willing to take the entire post apart point-by-point, in addition to providing another post that also supports this belief (also dated September 20). I will only do this if it's deemed necessary by the arbitration committee. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if this is the case. NinaEliza 00:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Hkelkar makes inflammatory comments

After reading the "Workshop" for this Arbitration, I felt it important to list some of the most inflammatory statements made by Hkelkar on the user talk page for Indian Buddhist Revival/Movement. The bolded words in this section are my edits.

  • In fact, all this laughable content that was put there by a truly "tendentious" editor serves to demonstrate the cultish nature of this so-called Indian Buddhist movement.Like any cult, they deny the truth about Buddhism being a primarily non-Indian religion and try to establish writings by obscure writers (to most Buddhists in the world) as some sort of canon. This is exactly the kind of attitude held by the Mormons or the Scientologists.Hkelkar 18:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[[496]]
  • The claims made in the caste-barrier section are all unsourced and, quite frankly, read like the proselytization of a preacher (Dhamma-thumper?). Provide cited sources to establish reliable statistics, or the section also gets axed.Hkelkar 20:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[[497]]
  • And you accused me of being "offtopic". Lol! A fanatic is easy to spot. Dhammawhosit can preach hatred all he wants. He just needs to keep it off wikipedia.Hkelkar 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[[498]]


  • So you do admit that Ambedkarite pseudo-Buddhists make special reservations for Hindus, which, in on itself, is a racist attitude held by the Ambedkarites.Hkelkar 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[[499]]
  • As far as Buddhism is concerned, well, Neo-Buddhism is not Buddhism at all, but a cult of sociopaths disguising themselves as Buddhists who are trying to gain political mileage in India by inciting communal disharmony. The caste system can be whittled out, but through social reform, not through "religious conversions". The Dalit situation will only get worse with conversion as that will solve nothing and only give them a false sense of accomplishment while the Neo-Buddhist cult cashes in on the publicity assiduously.Hkelkar 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[[]]
  • Your "symbolic" argument is typical liberal socialist dialectic and does not gel with the facts."Symbolic" means nothing unless the people "Symbolizing" have a deep-seated hatred for Hindus. Then the "symbols" mean something only to those haters and bigots, not to reasonable people. The Neo-Buddhist cult have done nothing productive at all. They are like the scientology people in America. They clain to advocate for a better way of life but all they do is take your money and run.Hkelkar 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[[500]]
  • Egalitarian", eh? Sounds like Socialism to me! How many people have socialists murdered in the 20th century? Stalin's genocide of the Kulaks, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" and "GReat Leap Forward" caused millions of deaths, Pol-pot, Lon-Nol, and now Kim-Jong-Il. Egalitarians have caused more deaths than all the religions of the world put together in the 20th century. No thanks. Let the Americans bomb them all. they can rot together with their friends in al-Qaeda.Hkelkar 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[[501]]
  • That having said, I do not agree with the original poster that this article is "useless", or that dalits are turning "anti-Hindu". The anti-Hindus are the bastards who are running the show.Hkelkar)[[502]]


  • Anti-Hindu attutides above are based more on hate and, I suspect, jealousy over losing jobs etc. to Indians than any legitimate criticism.Hkelkar 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[[503]]
  • I disagree with Holybrahmin that "there is no Buddhist movement in India". I have personally seen Buddhist pilgrims going to the Holy tree of enlightenement in North India. While it is true that the Buddhist movement is weak, it is not nonexistent. Having said that, I must qualify that the editors POV-pushing in this article are NEO-Buddhists, who are a fringe movement within the larger Indian Buddhist movement and are essentially a cult along the lines of scientology or Jews for Jesus in America. Basically they CLAIM to be Buddhists but, in fact, are not. They have a political and cultural agenda behind their activities that has very little to do with normative Buddhism.Hkelkar 18:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[[504]]

As I stated before, these are SOME of the MOST inflammatory statements made Hkelkar on the talk page for Modern Indian Revival/Movement.

NinaEliza 05:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC) PS I am in the process of adding diffs, but I need to get something to eat first.

Done.NinaEliza 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I submit this:

Arbcomm has to understand that these Neo-Buddhist whack-bags have been getting away with this for MONTHS without any sysop doing anything about them. In the face of such a barrage of insults, PA's and tendentious edits, it is no wonder that I lost my cool on some occasions.Hkelkar 07:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[[506]]

This, along with several quotes from other users (who he calls my friends), is currently the sum total of Hkelkar's response to my evidence.

I apologize for exceeding the 1000 word limit. I appreciate your patience.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 09:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If it would be helpful to you to have further contact with me, please email me. I will no longer be participating in the arbitration, or on Wikipedia. I wish the project all the best and have every confidence that it will reach all of it's goals.NinaEliza 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Hkelkar and myself

On November 24th I decided to leave Wikipedia and posted a notice on my talk and user page to this effect[[507]][[508]]. As I was transfering some articles I had worked on and saying my goodbyes, Hkelkar and a user I had never seen before named Kris (or Srikeit) began to have a discussion on the Indian Buddhist Revival's talk page about deleting the article altogether on the grounds that it was not a genuine religious movement and not notable enough to warrant it's own article[[509]][[510]][[511]]. This showed up on my watchlist, and I was compelled to post that whether it was a religious movement or a form of socio-political protest, it was notable . I then had an exchange with Hkelkar that led to me posting the names of 6 books, their publishers and date of publication, authors, and ISBN numbers on the talk page itself[[512]].

By the end of this exchange, I resolved to stay and fight for the sake of this article. I also resolved to stay and fight for the sake of the article that Hkelkar suddenly authored called Kherlanji Massacre. I won't get into what this article is about, because it's a painful subject for both Indians and Humanity in general. Suffice to say that the story absolutely must be told accurately, fairly, and delicately.

Since I gave my evidence in this arbitration, I have watched Hkelkar's edits whenever I could. He has been extremely busy on several pages relating to his chief interests. He's made over 250 edits since November 24th[[513]], including a notable edit war at William Dalrymple(historian) with an admin named Doc glasgow[[514]][[515]][[516]]. Hkelkar has archived the various warnings he recieved on this matter, but I felt Doc glasgow's final comment speaks highly of him as an admin.

I've known for a couple of days that Hkelkar had asked for a continuance on the agreement that he ceased to edit anything other than his user page. I thought someone would catch him, but he not only continued, but had conversations with at least two admins during this time - one of whom was well aware of this arbitration, as evidenced by his contributions in this matter. I finally decided I had to confront Hkelkar. On November 27, I posted this on his talk page, and posted a copy of it on my own:

[edit] You continue to vigorously edit despite your own WORD

"Hkelkar, who is an advanced student of physics, has requested a continuance extending from November 24 to December 19 during finals. He has agreed to not edit outside his user pages during this period. While a continuance and continued evidence are arguably futile, see Wikipedia:Snowball clause, as the suggested remedy is a one year ban, a continuance is granted suspending further action until December 19.

 +  
 + :Support: 
 + :#Fred Bauder 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 
 + :# I dislike continuances in general, but this is tolerable. Charles Matthews 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC) [[517]]

I can't stand by any longer. At first I thought I would just quietly alert your advocates in email (which I did), but this is beyond the pale and beyond what even I can stomach. Since no one else seems to either notice or care, I will say it myself. I am furious that you would have the unmitigated gall to stand before the committee in your own arbitration pleading "finals" while simultaneously, contstantly, vigorously, and practically up to this very minute disregard your own word.

In addition, I assert that any admin who has communicated with you during this time is complicit in what you are doing. I find it hard to believe that the admins in question have no awareness of your pledge.

Since I've let the cat out the bag, I'll let another cat out as well. I've looked at the evidence suggesting that you are sockpuppet of user SubhashBose (or whatever). It is my belief that not only are you his sockpuppet, you are impersonating an actual person named Kelkar, who is indeed in his "advanced physic finals", but far from you. I also believe his English is faulty, that he's a friend or aquaintance of yours, and that he gave you permission to do this. He is the one speaking in the IRC chat that Aksi cites, not you.

I can't describe how personally odious I find all of your actions to be. I'm not one to whine to authority figures about another person's behaviour, but believe me, I will whine like a stuck pig if you add a single coma outside of this page.

I am done with you." NinaEliza 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[[518]][[519]]

A user I've had no interactions with posted a response on my talk page to my post[[520]]. Helkar follows this response with this comment and an NPA warning[[521]]. Helkar then posts this [[522]]. The editor who made the first response posts this [[523]]. Then, User Hkelkar posts this:

Hi Nina

Hi. I was wondering, based on your declaration in the user page about being a mental health consumer, if you're bipolar. I've had my own share of depression during my undergraduate years (and sought successful treatment) so I sympathize with your situation. If that is the case, then I can understand that you did not mean to attack me in your last post to my talk page and that was probably your symptoms talking. If you ever feel emotionally overwhelmed then send me an email or post a message in my talk page and I can provide moral support. Hkelkar 17:30, 28 November 2006 [[524]][[525]](UTC)

When I discovered these posts today, I copied the original post and pasted it on the Administrator's Notice Board[[526]]. Martin23 (one of Hkelkar's advocates) responded by stating the feeling he had (from Hkelkar's response to an email he sent) was that Hkelkar got the dates mixed up[[527]]. Whether that means he got the dates of the agreement wrong, or simply didn't know what day it was when he made over 250 date-stamped edits, remains to be seen.

I honestly don't know what else to say. I stand by the statements I've made here 100%. I think if I really wanted to, my submission of evidence would only be limited by my own fatigue, or general disgust. NinaEliza 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12/4/06 - Indian Buddhist Revival and Kherlanji Massacre

As much as I'd love to do battle with Hkelkar and his fellow editors, I have a job and have to work.


This is the way the article Indian Buddhist Revival (now redirected, with no request for input, to a page called Dalit Buddhist Movement)looks today:[[528]]. The page history (briefly interrupted by an editor who futily tries to protest named Pkulkani)is here:[[529]]. The page is now located at Dalit Buddhist movement. utcursch | talk 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


The Kherlanji Massacre (which, believe me, is truly horrific by any human standard) looks like this [[530]]. This is it's page history:[[531]].


Hkelkar is working in concert with an Editor named Ambroodey, who was apparently called out of retirement by an editor named Dangerous Boy (or D-Boy). It appears I have a new "friend". NinaEliza 02:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a few bad faith assumptions right there. Hkelkar 06:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Bondego

[edit] BLP violation by TwoHorned

1)TwoHorned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has violated BLP.

  • Since January 2006, the user Two Horned (who is the same user as AlexOriens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)), has edited the Koenraad Elst page. Almost the whole talkpage is filled with his very lenghty discussions. He appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view.
  • He claims on the talkpage that Elst is associated with "right-wing neopaganism" (which obviously can be interpreted as Nazi mysticism). "Oh, I'm pretty sure you have nothing against new agers, Elst loves them very much, mostly when they indulge into european right-wing neo-paganism (we have so beautiful forests in Europe, if only you could see what's happening in there...).
  • He connects in the BLP article Elst with the "extreme right", and says that Elst's has sympathies for the extreme right. [532] [533] [534] This all despite the fact that Elst has often written against fascism, nazism and anti-semitism.
  • He uses forum posts [535] and personal homepages as a source for his attacks on BLP (or no sources at all). This is a violation of WP:BLP, which is strict about sources that attack BLP. I and other editors have pointed this out to him many times. He still insists on sources like the the Zydenbos Angelfire site. He has also made allegations without any source. And he also uses Renee Guenon as a source (who died before Elst was born), and he used the talk page as a source, which he referenced in the article itself.[536] All this he defends in lenghty discussions on talk pages. Users get frustated when they want want to insist on WP:BLP with this user. (For example, I replaced the source from a forum post with a source from an article by Elst himself, and TwoHorned uses this as evidence against me on talk pages and on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence) It is very hard to keep in line with WP:BLP with this user (see the very lenghty discussions and his contributions). And the result is that the BLP violation problems cannot be addressed.
  • He connects Elst with "political extremism" and makes unsourced allegations. [537]
  • He writes in the article Dr. Koenraad Elst is known for his sympathies for the extreme right, and provides an Angelfire site as a source for this BLP violation. [538]
  • He has also deleted a section that shows Elst's stance against fascism. [539]
  • Writing that Elst had a leftist past (which was well sourced from Elst himself) is for TwoHorned the same as "whitewashing Elst from his well known political affiliations". (which per above must be extreme right!) --Bondego 10:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Itsmejudith

[edit] Hkelkar makes unfounded accusations

For edits I made to the page V.T. Rajshekar, which I was trying to wikify, as I contribute to clearing the backlog of articles for wikification, Hkelkar accused me of “whitewashing anti-Semitism”. [540] After I asked for clarification he also accused me of anti-Semitism in edits to the History of the Jews in Italy article, another article in need of wikification. [541]

He apologised after User:Basawala intervened to tell him that he had been incivil to me [542]

However, following that he made a sarcastic comment on my talk page. [543]

Much more recently Hkelkar modified my user page – apparently a user box was badly placed. I thanked him for doing this. I also noted that on his user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hkelkar he makes accusations of racism against fellow editors. I took him up on this (gently) [544], but he tried to justify it. [545] I have no opinion at all on the user that he mentions but I don’t like to see such comments on user pages. It doesn't give casual viewers confidence in the "assume good faith" policy.

While researching this evidence, I have just found out that Hkelkar recently went to user:HumusSapiens accusing me of “whitewashing” on the article Dalit Voice. [546] I am quite shocked by this because I thought that in spite of our previous run-ins he was now willing to work constructively with me. Of course I can justify my edits to that article and would have been willing to do so on the article’s talk page, which I watch. We have very different views about what makes a reliable source in Wikipedia but I have always done my best to explain my thoughts in full and listen to his explanations. There have been some other exchanges, e.g. in relation to the writer Koenraad Elst whose work I don't generally regard as a good source in WP, but I have only mentioned the most relevant ones here. Itsmejudith 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Srikeit

[edit] User:Ikonoblast (previously User:Holywarrior) is disruptive

  • He has made baseless allegations against wikipedia admins like Blnguyen, Ben. W. Bell, JoshuaZ and Shell Kinney - [549], [550], [551], [552]. He feels that any admin who opposes him has some vendetta against him. This behaviour is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.
  • Ikonoblast (block log) and his previous avatar Holywarrior (block log) have been blocked a total of 6 times for incivility, disruption, warning-warring and 3RR.
    • Arbiters must ask for comments from neutral admins, Indians (belonging to the same cartel) may not be one of them. Ikon |no-blast 12:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I still give these blocking admins to justify their block.All of them has almost admitted their fault , however blnguyen failed to do even that. I wd also ask for exemption from any admin action by indian admin ; whose case I will present shortly and their indirect involvement thru IRC channel sd be investigated.  Ikon |no-blast 12:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • It is nice to hear you complimenting the 23 Indian admins we have here on enwiki. GizzaChat © 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes I was mostly blocked by non-indians.But would you like to complement yourself on having put me on Fundywatch --- By the way I was talking abt indirect involvement, which you ppl seem to have mastered,and cartel is blunguyens bananabucket(his RFa nominees) from where this srikiet guy emerges who talks dubious,terms. Ikon |no-blast 13:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Basawala

[edit] User:Hkelkar makes unfounded prejudiced accusations

Hkelkar has made a few nasty accusations against me:

  1. [553] "Looks like the ji(had)g is up." Here he cleverly places the word "jihad" inside "jig", making a veiled personal attack against me. He tried to deny that this was even meant to target me, but due to an admin, Hkelkar later made an apology at the same time admitting that this was an attack.
The reason Hkelkar accused me of "jihadism" was because I placed an NPOV tag on Indian caste system, I indeed did explain on the talk page that the Muslim section seems to overstress the caste system, which is not as strong as the article claimed it. For this small reason, the "j(ihad)g" attack was very unfounded, especially since I am neither Muslim nor biased in my editing.
Stop harassing users.--D-Boy 21:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I request an explanation why you think I harass users, and specifically whom you belief I harass; I believe strongly in being civil, neutral, and nice, as some of my userboxes state. Also editing inside another user's evidence section is not allowed, refer to to top of this page, especially not such a strong accusation. Mar de Sin Speak up! 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence presented by User:AMbroodEY

[edit] User:NinaEliza acts in bad faith

Though I would like to desist from turning this Arbcomm into a slinging match, I'd like to reply to some of the accusations hurled at me by NinaEliza. She has been leveling baseless allegations.

As much as I'd love to do battle with Hkelkar and his fellow editors, I have a job and have to work. Wikipedia is not a battle ground. We are all working in co-operation. As I see it, its not us v/s them for me.

This is the way the article Indian Buddhist Revival (now redirected, with no request for input, to a page called Dalit Buddhist Movement)looks today:486. The page history (briefly interrupted by an editor who futily tries to protest named Pkulkani)is here:487.

The article was originally titled Neo-Buddhism which is by far the more common name for the Buddhist sect in question. Dalit Buddhist movement. ]It was aparently moved to "Indian Buddhist revival" by self-identified missionaries from the sect. I tried to engage Nina in a discussion over the article talk page Talk:Dalit Buddhist movement/Archive 1; she simply ignored my arguments adding that the discussion should end there. Claiming that the title of the article (Indian Buddhist revival) reflects the self-identification used by the followers of the sect (without giving credible sources ofcourse). [554]

User:NinaEliza has formed an impromptu cabal against HKelkar. Off late, she has been of late tracking contribs of some users (Kelkar, D-Boy, New Rock Star, Aniruddh77) User:NinaEliza/Links. Such cherry picking of diff's obviously shows Bad Faith on her part.

As for Kherlanji is concerned her detailed comments can be found here. Despite her claims and sweet talk, Nina does have a strong POV. She is too quick to jump into conclusions and for groups. If she has any problems with my edits she has NEVER brought up the issue with me, even though she finds time to plaster malicious accusations against me over random Wikipedia projects.

Whats more, I believe she is deliberately bringing up Kherlanji massacre on this page (she hasnt provided links to problematic edits) only to paint me and HKelkar as caseist users.

Hkelkar is working in concert with an Editor named Ambroodey, who was apparently called out of retirement by an editor named Dangerous Boy (or D-Boy). It appears I have a new "friend".

Her prejudice is self-evident. I repeat I am not working for or against anybody.

[edit] User:NinaEliza may have edited Wikipedia under other username

I base my accusations on the fact that Nina shows amazing familiarity with Wikipedia and its functioning for some who has registered just four weeks back. She has been too quick to form groups. In short her manner is certainly not of someone new to Wikipedia.

अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 09:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any idea of who she may be a sock of? GizzaChat © 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a fair idea, but its based on circumstancial evidence. It is also very likely that she may be a meat puppet... She seems to have deleted User:NinaEliza/Links though! Some damagecontrol.... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)