User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Hkelkar 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Rama's Arrow enacted blocks against blocking policy

Block of Bakasuprman

  • Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely without rhyme or reason. Rama's Arrow acted solely on whim and enacted an indefinitely block with the reason – "meatpuppet of Hkelkar; disruptive editing", based on evidence which he has deliberately doctored to eliminate other users he does not get along with. Later, the block was shortened by him to six months – [1], saying that indef blocks are supposed to be community bans. I have no reason to believe that RA has an understanding of the Wikipedia policies and more importantly the process.
  • RA labelled Bakasuprman as a "meatpuppet" of Hkelkar. Bakasuprman is an individual editor with a completely different editing history and has been editing Wikipedia since 7th July 2006. RA does not understand Wikipedia's policy on meatpuppetry. Bakasuprman has not been blocked prior to this since 3rd September 2006.
  • RA's arguments are fundamentally flawed and it seems that he does not understand the definition of the word "meatpuppet" as defined by WP:SOCK – [2]. This was pointed out by Administrator riana – [3] and later reiterated by myself – [4]. Administrators Nishkid and Mailer diablo tried to reason and concluded that the blocks were heavy-handed and RA was being prejudicial to the users as he had been involved with them in the past. That itself did not deter RA from vociferously defending his capricious abuse of blocking tools. The ArbCom should note that those users who share ideologies are not meatpuppets accounts, especially when they have an individual and differential editing history.
  • Nothing in the so-called "evidence" which RA posted on the Administrators' noticeboard provided even a shred of substance that implicated Bakasuprman, or his involvement in the whole deal. The ArbCom should note that there are major discrepancies in RA's stories and he is trying to distort the truth, by hiding vital facts. RA had conveniently ignored adding Scheibenzahl (talk · contribs) to the list of involved users, especially when this user had been blocked on the same baseless grounds as Bakasuprman.

Other blockees

Sbhushan, Dangerous-Boy and Scheibenzahl on the same bogus reasons calling them meatpuppets of Hkelkar. There was no damning evidence produced by RA to substantiate this.

Rama's Arrow's blocking log – blocklog

  • 02:15, 22 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sbhushan (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (meatpuppet of Hkelkar)
  • 02:15, 22 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dangerous-Boy (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (meatpuppet of Hkelkar)
  • 02:15, 22 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bakasuprman (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (meatpuppet of Hkelkar; disruptive editing)
  • 02:14, 22 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Scheibenzahl (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of Anupamsr)
  • 02:14, 22 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Anupamsr (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppetry)

Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs • logs) – blocklog

  • 23:00, 24 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Dangerous-Boy (contribs) (for ArbCom case)
  • 01:41, 23 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dangerous-Boy (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months (meatpuppetry; indef'ing is a community ban, which is not the case)
  • 01:40, 23 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Dangerous-Boy (contribs) (to re-block)
  • 02:15, 22 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dangerous-Boy (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (meatpuppet of Hkelkar)

All in all, RA woke up one fine day, started blasting everybody ASAP; blocked them, humiliated them, labelled them as meatpuppets and sockpuppets – [5], dragged their name through mud and then had the nerve to bring this to the Arbitration Committee all by himself.

Rama's Arrow wheel-warred with another administrator

  • RA's ill-considered block on Bakasuprman was overturned by another administrator, who was an uninvolved party in the case, was re-enacted by RA, which is a violation an official Wikipedia policy – WP:WHEEL. Humus sapiens, obviously displayed good sense by making the unblock, to allow Bakasuprman to put his side of the argument forward, as there was nothing in the emails distributed, to implicate him as a possible "meatpuppet" of Hkelkar, even without on-wiki evidence.
  • RA haggled with the unblocking admin aggressively. He also threatened to unblock – [6], [7], [8]. See Humus sapien's response – [9].
  • RA undid the block by wheel-warring aggressively, with the reason – "re-imposed block - there was no consensus or justifiable need to unblock - user can explain himself on his talkpage, that is the norm. This is no exceptional circumstance." – [10]. The major problem is that the blocks themselves were so controversial originally that Rama's Arrow, under appropriate circumstances should have mailed all the "evidence" to the Arbitration committee in the first place, before making scandalous charges and blocks against established users of the community. RA tried his best to get his bogus admin actions endorsed over ANI, so that he did not have to approach the ArbCom, which would have made an extensive inquiry in the case.
  • 23:00, 24 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Bakasuprman (contribs) (for ArbCom case)
  • 23:55, 23 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bakasuprman (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months (re-imposed block - there was no consensus or justifiable need to unblock - user can explain himself on his talkpage, that is the norm. This is no exceptional circumstance.)
  • 23:22, 23 April 2007 Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs) unblocked Bakasuprman (contribs) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=125327926&oldid=125327398)
  • 01:40, 23 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bakasuprman (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months (shortening block - indef'ing is a community ban, which is not the case)
  • 01:39, 23 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) unblocked Bakasuprman (contribs) (to re-block)
  • 02:15, 22 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bakasuprman (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (meatpuppet of Hkelkar; disruptive editing)

Rama's Arrow potrays himself as some kind of parallel justice system to the community

  • Rama's Arrow labels Bakasuprman as a "tendentious, incivil and often disruptive editor." – [11] – Also, in the same diff, it can be viewed – "Ideological warriors must be handed a long-term blocks (sic) to make sure that if/upon their return, their minds have been given sufficient time to make peace with Wikipedia's norms and edit to build an encyclopedia" – and does not seem to have an understanding of the policies and the process on Wikipedia. He is trying to justify his unilateral abuse of admin blocking tools and hypocrisy by coming up with philosophical and quixotic arguments about his views on Wikipedia. Rama's Arrow conveniently overlooked the fact that Bakasuprman had not been blocked prior to this since 3rd September 2006, and that Dangerous-Boy had not been blocked before at all. More obiters to come – "remember, they have consorted with someone the ArbCom banned for 1 year. This is half of that, plus the benefit of "good behavior" parole (sorry for the police lingo)".
  • Rama's Arrow makes comments that display his sublime lack of concern or knowledge about the official policies of wikipedia, while making statements like these – [12] – "The overall goal of blocking these users is to protect the content of Wikipedia as well as other contributors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ideological battleground - we have no obligation to anyone who doesn't want to understand that. They must be made to understand that - I can remember numerous times when I lectured Baka on civility and "encyclopedia-building." He contributed well to DYK, but editing by proxy for a banned troll is most serious an offense." – This statement highlights two points, for one, Rama's Arrow is very much involved in this case and chose to make highly controversial blocks over emails he claims to be true; second, he has a gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia's goals and the due process. These accounts are not troll accounts, but established editors who had not been blocked since a very long time, some of them have not been blocked at all. However, tendatious their editing might have been, they did not get blocked for incivility or 3RR. Rama's Arrow has ulterior motives and has purposefully and deliberately dragged these users' names through the mud. His position can be likened to that of a whited sepulchre, who has ulterior motives behind his acts and chose to punish those who did not comply his wishes.
  • To conclude this part, RA actions potray that he has a misplaced notions about himself and his status as an administrator; and tries to potray himself as a deliverer of justice and a crusader.

Rama's Arrow blocked Anupamsr/Scheibenzahl on bogus grounds

  • 02:14, 22 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Scheibenzahl (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of Anupamsr)
  • 02:14, 22 April 2007 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs) blocked "Anupamsr (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppetry)

Rama's Arrow blocked Scheibenzahl (talk • contribs • logs) as a sockpuppet of User:Anupamsr – which gives me every reason to believe that RA does not understand the difference between an abusive sock puppet and perfectly legitimate usage of sock puppet accounts. Scheibenzahl had discarded his previous account in order to evade wiki stalking by some trolls. Rama's Arrow blocked the account without producing evidence of abusive sock puppetry.

  • Please view his comments – [13] – legitimate sockpuppet accounts are not supposed to be blocked.
  • Rama's Arrow uses blocks as a punitive measure, as is evident from his statement – [14] – has inferred that blocks are necessary penalty over users. Please see Scheibenzahl's comments – [15].
  • Rama's Arrow basically blocked Scheibenzahl for being on a mailing list, contents of which he claims were forwarded to him by AMbroodEY (talk • contribs • logs). He brazenly asks Scheizenbahl not to participate in mailing lists that "involve banned users". Later, Rama's Arrow admits on the Workshop page that he indeed was a part of the mailing list and knew about the zOMG! CABAL thing – [16], [17], RA's admission – [18]. That seems to suggest that RA was aware of zOMG! CABAL! since a long time, but did not consider it appropriate to jump the gun then. Bakasuprman, in his statement on the evidence page has asserted that Rama's Arrow explicitly asked for help on the mailing list. RA is trying to distort the truth and trying to exclude himself from the picture, esp. when he was right in the middle of it.
  • After twiddling with Scheibenzahl's blocklog, RA unblocked the user, with the reason – [19] – "After a detailed look at your case, and the fact that a number of highly respectable editors and admins are vouching for you, I will unblock you." – instead of apologising for his caprice and misuse admin tools.
  • Rama's Arrow has, I am afraid, triggered a mass exodus of established users from Wikipedia, because they all failed to comply to do RA's biddings. RA depicts himself as a Idealist and a visionary with very noble views on Wikipedia to falsely impress others. He deliberately sensationalised the issue on the admin noticeboard to gain notoriety, and in the same time implicated very respectable users of the community, solely on vagary.

Rama's Arrow is being a hypocrite

  • Rama's Arrow basically blocked Scheibenzahl for being on a mailing list, contents of which he claims were forwarded to him by AMbroodEY (talk • contribs • logs). He brazenly asks Scheizenbahl not to participate in mailing lists that "involve banned users". Later, Rama's Arrow admits on the Workshop page that he indeed was a part of the mailing list and knew about the zOMG! CABAL thing – [20], [21], RA's admission – [22]. That seems to suggest that RA was aware of zOMG! CABAL! since a long time, but did not consider it appropriate to jump the gun then. Bakasuprman, in his statement on the evidence page has asserted that Rama's Arrow explicitly asked for help on the mailing list. RA is trying to distort the truth and trying to exclude himself from the picture, esp. when he was right in the middle of it.
  • The Arbitration Committee needs to question RA's demeanour, when he was aware of the mailing list since January 2007. What was he doing while all this was happening and Unre4L and his friends were getting trampled upon, by himself? Was he biding his time collecting evidence? Playing agent provocateur? After the users were blocked by the ArbCom, Rama's Arrow tried to delete an article through AfD – Anti-Pakistani sentiment – details of which are given below.

Rama's Arrow has abused sysop tools in the past

  • Rama's Arrow blocked Szhaider while being in dispute with then. He abused admin rollback on the Mohommed Iqbal article, reverting three times, and then blocking Szhaider (talk · contribs) for violation of WP:3RR – [23], [24], [25]; and then Szhaider was blocked – [26] – making personal attacks, persistent incivility, provocative use of edit summaries, revert-warring on Iqbal – for one week, his third block, and one made by an administrator while being in content dispute. I must note that there was nothing "provocative" or "uncivil" in Szhaider's edit summaries that warranted a 1 week block. From User talk:Szhaider, it is quite evident that RA is completely involved in disputes with this user, even that did not stop him from increasing the block duration. (I remember condoning the block once, because Szhaider had indeed made some objectionable comments while editing; however this aspect of RA open misuse of the admin paraphernalia went unnoticed by me at that time.) This highlights RA's misuse of admin accouterments and subsequent heavy-handedness and a sublime lack of concern for the official policies of Wikipedia.
  • Nadirali (talk · contribs) was blocked while being in dispute with Rama's Arrow, please see Nadirali's comment – [27]. He was blocked again by RA on 30th January 2007 and 9th February 2007, by this very administrator, who was knee-deep into disputes with a particular group of editors, who all got banned in the India-Pakistan debate.
  • As for Unre4L (talk · contribs), almost all of the blocks of this user have been made by one administrator, Rama's Arrow.
  • First block was absolutely ridiculous, and in no way in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. RA, as usual, was in dispute with this editor. Unre4L made four edits on 14th January, before getting blocked for this reason – [28] – persistent incivility, disruption and POV-warring – [29], [30], [31], [32]. – as far as I can see, there was nothing remotely uncivil in Unre4L's edit to warrant a 1 WEEK BLOCK. This was his second block, by the way.
  • Second block was made by RA, knee-deep in dispute with this user again – [33]. Again, there was no evidence whatsoever of persistent incivility or personal attacks. Unre4L was merely challenging other users' point of views. The block duration was 1 WEEK. See MinaretDK's comments on the ANI discussion page.
  • Unre4L, unwittingly, came back to edit with a sockpuppet IP, his block was increased to a duration of 2 weeks; please note RA's heavy-handedness while dealing with blocks. He used his power and authority as an admin, to punish users.
  • Siddiqui (talk · contribs) was blocked once, by Rama's Arrow, while being involved in disputes with the user, for a period of 1 WEEK.
  • BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) was blocked by RA, indefinitely, the community noticeboard discussion being listed here – [34]. Rama's Arrow admits jumping the gun on User talk:Netscott – [35], evidently, he also mentions that he is disappointed in himself, but doesn't care much while blocking others in disputes again – [36]. BhaiSaab's blocklog – [37]. Please do note that there were plenty of users who disagreed with the block, but RA was still insistent on a indefinite block, and then blocked this user indefinitely, only to unblock him later and reduce the block to 1 year.
  • Even after all this, RA had the nerve to initiate the Arb case all by himself; just after Szhaider and others had posted evidence of his admin misconduct on the admin noticeboard.
  • The Arbitration Committee should also note that after the India-Pakistan case, RA tried to get an article deleted – Anti-Pakistani sentiment – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Pakistani sentiment, which was later closed by me as a keep. His main contention was that this article did not adhere to WP:NPOV. Please see my rationale for closure. This article has not been touched by RA since then; has not cared to clean up the text and remove the original research.

Rama's Arrow is basically begging for a desysop

Block of Indian50

  • Only recently, Rama's Arrow blocked Indian50 (talk · contribs) for an expiry time of 1 WEEK, for sockpuppetry. This user was NOT BLOCKED at the time he resorted to abusive sockpuppetry through an anon-IP address. Rama's Arrow blocked him for 1 week and later changed the duration to 2 weeks for harrassment. There is nothing, in the edits of the IP address or the user's edits that can be called harrassment. The user had introduced a {{fact}} template in the text, that's all. Ironically, Tuncrypt who violated 3RR on the article was not blocked – [38]. The anon was blocked before confirmation that it was indeed Indian50 socking – [39] – for vandalism on Gujarati grammar. There is no vandalism whatsoever in it's edits – [40].

Recent block of Anwar saadat

  • Rama's Arrow has shown an idiosyncratic and disruptive lack of concern for Wikipedia's policies and has abused blocking tools again while blocking Anwar saadat (talk • contribs • logs), while being involved in a dispute with him. Rama's Arrow blocked Anwar saadat at 15:05, 27 May 2007 and then reverted his edits using admin rollback – [41]. Anwar's blocklog – [42]. Please note that Anwar had not violated WP:3RR or any other Wikipedia policy, this block was punitive and way out of order.

Rama's Arrow has been consistently uncivil throughout the Arbitration

  • Baka - I am not a coward like you and I damn well have a lot more integrity than you ever will. Make my day, punk Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC) – [43].
  • You know, your whole evidence is puked-up shit. Do you find me revert-warring with you? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC) – [44].
  • I have also forwarded my conversations with AMbroodEY and other established users and administrators, who identify Sir Nick's threatening and belligerent behavior, his extensive misuse of Wikipedia and identify Konstable, Nishkid64 and Riana (who deleted his draft evidence for him - [45]) as participants in Sir Nick's cabal and acting as meatpuppets, directing their attacks against me and DaGizza on/about this case. This certainly explains Nishkid's and Konstable's vicious attacks against me, his misguided "evidence" aimed at maligning me and the collective eagerness of these four individuals to see Bakasuprman un-blocked. – [46] – Accusing other administrators of meatpuppetry, just because Riana deleted one of my subpages on request.
  • [47] – Miuses admin rollback once again.
  • Frankly Nishkid64 and Sarvagnya - I don't give a damn about y'all. You have completely ignored the evidence, completely disrespected my judgment and issued bogus criticism - do you think I feel the slightest regard for y'all after that? I have already given my evidence and what I have to say - you can like it or.... Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 22:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC) – [48] – Throws vile and despicable innuendoes once again.
  • Do you really want me to reply? I can do that in 2 words. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC) – [49]
  • [50] – accuses me of sockpuppetry and trolling other users. Has this been verified with checkuser in the past, or all the evil guys are "CABALISTS! MEATPUPPETS! and TROLLS"?
  • liar liar, account on fire – [51] – Everyone is a liar, and RA is the upholder of truth and neutrality on Wikipedia, perhaps this is what he is insinuating.
  • Whenever met with the prospect of talking to either one of you, I'm always asked the question - Kya Bhais Ko Bhagavad Padhte Hain? Too bad I haven't ever given the correct answer - up till now. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC) – [52] – RA makes an uncivil and vily statement against Dangerous Boy – "Kya Bhains ko Bahgavad Padhate Hain" – (literally means, in less expressive English) – "Why should I teach a buffallo what the Bhagwad Gita means?" – insinuating that D-Boy and others are illiterate and ignorant users.
  • DaGizza knows what Wikipedia is about and why he's here. Too bad you don't, and prolly never will. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) – [53] – has very wrong notions about himself as an administrator.
  • Thanks for your message - I've never had the pleasure of interacting with you, so it did arouse some bad-faith suspicions in me as to why you were so vigorously putting up fake evidence and bull**** accusations against me. While I do have an inkling as to why you tried to do that, it doesn't really matter. I'm content to let the arbs figure out what to do with the "evidence" and answer the question whether off-wiki meatpuppetry poses no threat to Wikipedia. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC) – [54].
  • Kiss my rear. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC) – [55].
  • My apology was for the original posting and for any possible harm to the persons in question. However, I clearly told you guys that I would have to present relevant sentences of the conversations to complete the case. No one can afford to have any questions unanswered about this case. I am prepared to slug this out with you guys as I don't respect this inane insistence on the privacy of trolls. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC) – [56]
  • I told you guys before that I would have to post relevant snipets of the conversations to provide context and continuity. I cannot respect your nonsense about "privacy" violations because (a) I was party to the e-mails (there is no ownership) and (b) is it not clear that the situation is most serious? As far as this is concerned, kiss my rear. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC) – [57]
  • Aggressively insinuates again – I will be publishing my case and evidence circa 14:00 hours today, May 21. For prospective, nitpicking abusers wanting to harp about the few hours delay, I have some choice words which I cannot basically say to you on Wikipedia. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC) – [58]
  • I would like to warn you not to make personal attacks or engage in disruptive behavior here or anywhere else. Given your history, I'm not particularly surprised though. Yes I am not a cop - just as this is not a court. However, I am charged with preventing/stopping disruption of Wikipedia, which I have done. While those plotters could easily be "obviously stupid terrorists," it was clear to me that your lot was not, "obviously stupid." If you were, you wouldn't have gotten past your first unblock request.... :) Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC) – [59] – Hypocritically warns others against incivility and personal attacks; esp. when there wasn't any personal attack in D-Boy's comment.
  • I appreciate the supportive and abusive comments. Frankly, I can't care less about adminship and if ArbCom feels desysopping is needed, so be it - if I'm not empowered to do my job of protecting Wikipedia, what's the point of being an administrator? I'm certainly not interested in all this whining, bitching, moaning and endless arguing. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC) – [60]
  • As if you are not aware, 3-4 parties are currently away due to exams - have some respect (if you understand the concept) for other people's real-life commitments. I plan to submit my case statement and evidence very soon - everyone will have enough time to examine it. In the interim, give the hooting, hollering and bitching a rest. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC) – [61] – Insults.
  • Rama's Arrow's hypocrisy on civility and personal attacks highlighted here, by another user – [62] – Rama's Arrow, listen to your own comments. "I have no respect for Mel whatsoever". "Mel's conduct is irresponsible and suspicious","frivolously attacking someone's integrity", "wantonly insulted", "Mel Etitis's most insane accusation", "Mel, who up till now I didn't think was a troll", "Take a deep breath? Assume WP:AGF? Why don't you ask Mel", "Mel's insane charges", "A volcano has just exploded in my mind against Mel Etitis - he better thank God for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA...", "his stupid suggestion",.....you're getting way too worked up, and you're borderline losing civility here. If you're going to be accusing Mel of being incivil, you should make sure that you yourself don't violate that first. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi - you've got mail. Btw, Sir Nick is right - after all, only a real dick would know :) Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC) – [63]. I could also jump and attack RA for "talking to Doc over email, and conspiring!!!!", but maybe RA thinks he is subject to witness protection.

My response to RA's allegations

  • Rama's Arrow has deliberately linked again to Moe Epsilon's production of email evidence on the admin noticeboard, which was produced by Moe after four months, and had been immediately dealt by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation. Jimbo Wales is aware of the incident. Ironically, Tawker was also indicted for "conspiring", and a super sekrit cabal friend of mine. This issue was about someone else, though, yeah. I admit, Karmafist has been a long-term friend of mine, in fact, it was he who invited me to edit Wikipedia. What we do together off-wiki, is no business of RA's.
  • As for Cindery, her's had not been a case of on-wiki trolling, but of real-life harrassment of administrator Samir (talk · contribs), I took the decisions only after consulting Samir; and enough on-wiki evidence to support it. The discussions are archived in the admin noticeboard. RA has spent three weeks digging dirt on me, and nothing else. Finally, it was Rama's Arrow himself who archived the discussion. I suppose he was satisfied at that time, but now he's probably rethinking what he did there was not correct.
  • Clt13 and Kuntan's evidence was not based on emails or personal chats. They were available over public archives. As an administrator who has tracked Kuntan and his sockpuppets over the last few months, I can be trusted to understand his modus operandi. This user has created scores of sockpuppets in the past, to troll and harrass other users. Deepujoseph (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), who has changed his username due to real-life problems, was almost rusticated from his college due to real-life harrassments and threats made by this user. Once again, Jimbo Wales and board member Kat Walsh are aware of it.
  • As for this accusation – [64], I suppose, AMbroodEY will be able to explain better than anyone else. Like I have said before, I have NOT contacted any users to promote sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. It seems that RA still has difficulties comprehending the meaning of meatpuppets as described on WP:MEAT.
  • The evidence produced by RA in the beginning was doctored, some of the words evidently been mine, and some others are not (the innocuous ones were mine, naturally). The Arbitrators have not forwarded me the emails, so I cannot comment on them.
  • Email evidence or IRC chats have been repudiated by the Arbitration Committee in the past, so why are they being considered now? There are many politically incorrect discussions taking place over IRC, even at the present moment. Why does the ArbCom see the need to police private channels of communications? There are several instances in the past that would uphold the veracity of my statements. A request for arbitration, to put certain amount of control and accountability was categorically rejected by the committee. As for RA's requests to the community for trusting him with the evidence, I'll quote Sbhushan's lovely words – "I wouldn't even trust him to change light-bulbs"
  • [65] – RA accuses me of lying. I did not. The evidence was forwarded to me by Sarvagnya, consisted of the same email, DaGizza had distributed a few days ago. The chat logs and other conversations were not received by me.
  • [66], I did not argue for Bakasuprman's incivility at any point in the argument. My attempt was only directed to display the hypocrisy and the double-standards that RA displayed while dealing with Dbachmann and Bakasuprman respectively. Rama's Arrow is deliberately misquoting me, to push forward his malicious agenda.
  • To say that an IP originates from my area, so it is my sockpuppet, is to make a grossly incorrect statement. The IP originates from Chennai, and resolves to Sify; and any checkuser can identify that I do not use the same ISP, nor do I live in Chennai. Although, Mr. Bhadani lives close-by, perhaps RA would not mind saying that he was the one who did it, if he had something against him.

Summary of arguments

  1. Rama's Arrow violated official policy of Wikipedia – WP:BLOCK – while blocking the users mentioned above.
  2. Rama's Arrow wheel-warred with Humus sapiens over Bakasuprman's blocks.
  3. Rama's Arrow's subsequent comments after the blocks depict that he was using admin paraphernalia as a device to punish users.
  4. Rama's Arrow has been consistently uncivil throughout the Arbitration process.
  5. Rama's Arrow has abused admin tools in the past, while blocking BhaiSaab, Unre4L, Nadirali, Szhaider and Siddiqui.
  6. Rama's Arrow has misused admin rollback.

On cabalism

  • First of all, there is no gawddamn cabal. There are cliques, tonnes of them. To say that I as a user was aware of the existence of Dangerous Boy and his friends, is to say, that I knew that they were working together as a group of editors with an ideology dissimilar to that of Unre4L and friends. It was evident from their patterns of editing. Nothing noccous about it. There are hundreds of editors who work like this. Wikipedia is not a conventional encyclopedia, it has it's systematic biases, this being one of them.
  • Aksi great knows well, that I used to refer to Hkelkar and Shiva's Trident as a same person, over IRC. There was a similarity in their edits. As for Rumpelstiltskin223, it was I who asked Aksi great to block the account, as he had been earlier caught using open proxies. Aksi great will confirm this statement.
  • There was nothing exclusive about this group, some of these users got blocked, some did not. It was all based on their on-wiki conduct. My contact with Bakasuprman was restricted to terse admonishments on using sockpuppets and being uncivil.
  • In no way, should off-wiki evidence, that is, emails and IRC conversations and similar, be considered as evidence in an ArbCom case. Please judge us on what we do here on Wikipedia. There was a request put forwards towards the ArbCom to police IRC channels, which was categorically rejected. Off-wiki evidence, as of public archives, has been considered in the past only when the user has accepted that it was indeed him who did something in public view.
  • Even after the mockery of system that Rama's Arrow has made out of this case, he has been unable to present a single diff as to prove that I was indeed involved in the "meatpuppetry ring" (again, I must reiterate on the point that, RA is still finding it difficult to grasp the concept of meatpuppetry).
  • Riana, Nishkid and Konstable have been accused as my meatpuppets, which I find to be a very hilarious argument.

Notes

  • Rama's Arrow's blocks were *NOT* upheld on India-Pakistan debate. They were condoned. A grave and serious miscarriage of justice, which needs to be corrected. Four users were blocked on whim, and that in any way, was not in accordance with the process. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I never accused RA of meatpuppetry. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)