Revision as of 11:41, 19 February 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral Point of View

1) Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

2) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to assume good faith, and to observe Wikiquette, civility, writers' rules of engagement, and avoid personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

3) Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I always did.That's why I've raised this issue on discussion pages which didn't seem to help much.But I'd like to note that some users abuse it by edit warring in the name of good faith.It should be assumed from the start until that editor can no longer prove him/herself worthy of good faith after repeatidly refusing to engage in debate and revert carelessly.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

4) The use of Misplaced Pages for political propaganda is prohibited by Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed Szhaider 06:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Nadirali نادرالی

Agreed Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed - Bakaman 01:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No original research

5) Misplaced Pages editors may summarize reliable secondary and tertiary sources but may not include original research based on their experience or knowledge, however accurate or well founded. As stated at WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, synthesis of primary documents into a new argument constitutes original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Avoid neologisms

6) Neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Misplaced Pages policies: no original research, reliable sources and verifiability. They must be used so that undue weight is not given to a particular point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Adapted from WP:NEO. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed. Bakaman 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is harmful

7) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing

8) Users who disrupt using aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

9) Misplaced Pages is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sockpuppets

10) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed.Among the most damaging tactics can be the use of sockpuppetry.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Conflict of Interest

11) Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view while doing so. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Meatpuppets

12) A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed upon.--Nadirali نادرالی

Agreed Szhaider 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed.Bakaman 17:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ban due to disruption

13) Users who engage in activities which are extremely disruptive may be banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed: Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rollback

14) Rollback should only be used for non-controversial reverts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree and accept this criticism - I should have reverted with a request to discuss on the talkpage. Rama's arrow 17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed: , David Mestel 10:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam

15) Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. ,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed: Amey Aryan DaBrood 12:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

SecondedBakaman 18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring by multiple users

16) If multiple users act as meatpuppets of each other by reverting an article to the same version to avoid 3RR rule, and any one of them have two reverts and total reverts to same version are four then all participating meatpuppets should be blocked for same period of time under 3RR rule. Let's say user A is trying to edit an article and user X, Y and Z have decided to revert the article to same version to avoid 3RR. X has reverted 2 times while Y and Z have reverted 1 time each. Total reverts are 4 where X has two reverts to his credit. In this situation X, Y and Z, all of them should be blocked for same period of time under 3RR rule.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The arbcom cannot rewrite WP:3RR which is what this is saying. If this is the case, all parties on any side of an argument are merged into one, and you would have deadlock on everything that is disputed. Then you would find yourselves on the talk page, but unless people unanimously migrate to one side of the argument, then nothing happens...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed : Szhaider 07:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the evidence of meatpuppetry here? Your edits on Pajamas were reverted by user:Fowler&fowler, user:Dbachmann and others - should they be blocked as meatpuppets violating 3RR? Don't invent policies, please. Rama's arrow 15:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New policies are needed as new problems arise. Earlier policies have failed to prevent certain hostile situations. You are giving example of two respected editors to lower the importance of my proposal. This tactic is anything but honorable. Szhaider 16:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is putrid nonsense - if you want to propose new policies, go somewhere else. This is an ArbCom case. And who are you to decide who's "honorable" and who's not? Rama's arrow 17:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your cool and refrain from personal attacks. The major heading of this section says "Proposed principles" that is why I "proposed". Szhaider 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring is an obvious breach of WP Policies. It just requires someone to have a lot of people on their side, and they can escape the 3RR policy. Indian Nationalists have been using this to their advantage for quite some time. Of course its an unfair practice and abuse of WP. A Block should be in order for such offence. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 22:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse I think he's reffering to the massive number of Indian users who tag-team edit war on articles.After all that's how they have taken control of the articles.Take for example how Rama,Hkelkar(in the false disguise of Rumpelstiltskin223),Bakaman and Anupam tag-team edit warred against Szhaider on Iqbal or how Bakaman,Ambroody,D-boy,DaGizza, and others edit warred against me by enforcing an Indian banner on the talkpage of Sindhi literature.These are just 2 examples of countless other incidents of Indian tag-team edit warring against us.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Alien scripts

17) Addition of alien scripts to an article to reflect a perspective which is not local to the origin of the subject (scientific or artistic work, personality, religious terminology etc.) of the article should be punished by blocking the user for at least 12 hours. Same should be applicable for the addition of categories to politically or ideologically claim the article for a group, community or country other than that of its origin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, if an editor is found to have been disruptive, eg, by stubbornly editing on such articlesin an inappropriate manner, then they would be blocked anyway; having said that, from what I can ascertain, there is no binding policy which judges which scripts are native to which subject, eg, see User_talk:Blnguyen/Rahul_Dravid#Dravid.27s_ethnicity for one unclear example, which would make this thing functional upon a day to day basis by an admin doing a simple judgment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed : Szhaider 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(lol) This title speaks for the ridiculous nature of this proposal. Rama's arrow 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Which policy are you using to support this assertion? Amey Aryan DaBrood 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally dude, do define, Alien scripts. Your pal User:Nadirali comically asserted on Talk:Doosra that sanscrit (sic) is a Pakistani language! . Your position is self-contradictory. Amey Aryan DaBrood 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well since the Indians have falsely claimed it (sanscrit) for themselves,the misuse of it can be seen.What's more is Fowler once stated that when he visted Indian articles the Indians forgot to add Indian texts but did not waste a second in adding it to Pak articles.Anyways I don't see the purpose of adding sanscrit to the doosra article since it is technicly a dead language in Pakistan.Adding the Urdu alphabets makes more sense.--Nadirali نادرالی

Oppose - This is amazingly frivolous.Bakaman 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow

18) {Most of his alligations should not be taken as evidence}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Arbitrators will read the comments presented and may look further themselves, and if something which is not credible is presented it would be ignored. It's not appropriate to state in the principles section of the case, to pre-declare that one party's presentation is going to be ignored. If their presented caes against another party is frivolous, then no remedies will come of it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I propose this.He is simply twisting our words to confuse arbitrators.For example take my suggestion to the other Pakistani to use vandalproof.Nowhere did I suggest it be used to edit war against the Indians.It was simply to protect our userpages.I never used my anti-vandal tool for edit wars.I used it to keep vandals in check.I even earned a barnstar for it.See my userpage.Another quick example.I am accussed of "attacking Muhajirs" on the lines of race and religion.I criticised Muahjirs nationalist ideoligy and religious mentality.Add to that I am part Muhajir.--Nadirali نادرالی

I endorse this Principle. I thought he had realised his mistake of using extremely misleading quotes to block me, but apparently not. He is using the exact same misleading titles as his evidence on this arbcom. And at the height of his hypocrisy, he is still ignoring the extremely racist and insulting comments by Indian users. Check out Bakamans comments, (quoted on this page).

Also, his accusations of Sock Puppetry are just about as false as they can get. At the most, he can say I evaded a Block, by not logging in and defending myself from his ridiculous accusations of Anti Semitism on the admin review panel, but Labelling me a Sock Puppet is beyond ridiculous on his part. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 20:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not really a remedy. More of a principle, if anything. David Mestel 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved to principles section. David Mestel 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation of editors

19) It is not generally advisable to group editors by race, referring to "Indian editors" or "Pakistani editors" as a homogenous body. David Mestel 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In that case user boxes relating users to their countries should be deleted and banned. We could save a lot of space on Wiki-servers. Szhaider 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Propose: might help to diffuse tension. David Mestel 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I was more thinking of people referring to them in a somewhat derogatory manner ("the edit warring of the Atlantan editors", etc.) David Mestel 20:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - In our indian editors there are over 20-30 ethnic groups, and hundreds of clans and tribes.Bakaman 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Szhaider

1) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has abused other editors () and committed racial and religious abuse(, )

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to make one thing clear about . I am a Muslim. If someone says that he/she is offened if she is accused of being or called a Muslim, I do not consider it anti-Muslim remark and it does not offend me in any way. For me it is simply his/her expression of strong loyality to his/her own faith. Said comment was posted in the same context and spirit. It was grossly misintrepted. I do not have WP:ANI in my watch list and there was no way for me to know if a complaint against the comment was posted there. I was blocked without any warning or any request to remove the said comment. Szhaider 02:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see User:Zora#Thumbs down which according to Rama's definition is offensive to a whole lot of groups but I do not find it offensive at all. Please note that my comment was criticised particularly because of the use of the word "accused". Szhaider 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I take it that you did not consider the "warning" section under Re:Jinnah and Iqbal as a warning? Was not this an effort to remove the personal attack prior to your blocking? The problem with your comment is that it did offend others - you should not make such comments if you don't think you mean them the way they read. But the comment was put out there - completely unnecessarily, as you were obviously aware that user:Baloch Victory was merely taunting you. You raised a hue and cry by expressing outrage at being associated, however mistakenly, with Hindus. That is your own fault. Rama's arrow 03:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But I was blocked for "comment" on my user page. Warring doesn't deserve 7 day block. Szhaider 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked on the basis of the ANI report, the personal attack on your userpage and 3RR on Iqbal. The ANI report had been linked to you and I had explained my rationale in the block summary. As to what duration you were to be blocked for, you had yet again violated WP:3RR, compounded with series WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL violations. Rama's arrow 03:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And outraged as you were by user:Baloch Victory, why did you offer him your advice on the proper behavior for patriotic Pakistanis? Why did you feel it necessary to comment: A personal note! I am of Arab ancestry. Secondly as a Pakistani I believe only in Pakistani nationalism and I strongly despise provincial nationalism which is extremely dangerous for our country and unity. Szhaider 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Why did you not warn the user with {{npa}} (which you did - my bad) alert an administrator? The political advice was more important, was it? Rama's arrow 03:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And you assail user:Bakasuprman for welcoming him in a sarcastic manner (which I condemn), but you were keen on mentoring the user on how Pakistanis should think on key political issues with your "personal note"? Rama's arrow 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems you did not read what I wrote before the political advice. It was that "npa" template. I know why did he post the comment on my page. It was because of that Punjabi user box on my user page and I knew where he was talking from. That "political advice" was meant to prevent possible future attcks from him on the basis of ethnicity. Do you think that political advice was in some way destructive or "offensive"? Szhaider 03:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem, my dear sir, is that such political/religious views are not business that have anything to do with Misplaced Pages. You had dropped a warning against personal attacks - that should have sufficed, right? As a self-avowed "Pakistani nationalist," you immediately connected this user, whose name was "Baloch Victory," with the Punjabi userbox on your page. You sought to confront and deal with this user on this ethno-political level/issue - instead of dissuading him, you were provoking him. What you have routinely failed to understand is that the personal views, background, religion, ancestries, ethnicity of Misplaced Pages users have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. One is required to not discuss issues of this kind with no direct connection to Misplaced Pages business - this is not a blog or any other kind of webspace - its an encyclopedia. Rama's arrow 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to see a direct connection of my "political advice" to Misplaced Pages. Whatever I do or write is always is for the benefit of Misplaced Pages and its community. Sometimes you have to use your evolutionary skills of Interpersonal communication to understand what motivated an individual to do what he/she did. You have to go to that level to counter it in the politest way possible. You cannot scream from the top of a mountain when someone is drowning down in the valley. You have to go down there if you want to help. Your interpretation of my words is again wrong. I actually calmed him down. He never posted again. You are seeing my message to him from entirely different perspective. You have to read his message to me again to understand what I am saying. Szhaider 06:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No - you cannot claim you calmed him down - there are many cases of obvious trolling users logging in and editing/vandalizing 1-2 articles before disappearing. One of the pressing points is that you claimed you were upset over his comments for days, taking deep objection to being called "Hindu" and "Kaffir." If you were so conscious about Interpersonal communication, why did you do something so obviously offensive and stupid like posting that provocative statement on your userpage? Why did you use my religion to attack me? Nope, your explanation is full of holes. Rama's arrow 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I never attacked you. I just revealed the fact that you religious inclinations along with your nationalistic approaches to different topics were grossly affecting your activities. Szhaider 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unre4L

2) Unre4L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Please also "Note" that the message on my userpage encouraged "debating", and since I was new to Wiki I didnt know the rules too well, so I did advertise the site. My bad. But my concerns involved "making people aware", which I pointed out quite a lot. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unre4L is discounting the fact that he solicited Nadirali's membership, which resulted in Nadirali advertising the website further, especially an open invite at Category talk:Pakistani Wikipedians. The banned user:MinaretDk has also joined the forum. Rama's arrow 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Rama. Lets clear up something. You have used the comments of OTHER users on Pakhub against me in the past. Let me just clarify this. I have NO power over what OTHER users write, or who Joins.

And also to point out. I havent started ANY debates or even mentioned PakHub since the article got deleted. I only mentioned PakHub, when responding to your accusations against me regarding PakHub. I dont think I have even been the first person to MENTION PakHub in 2007!!!.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made it clear in the past that I do not care about anything on PakHub, except how it has influenced Misplaced Pages in the way you and Nadirali solicited members and have tried to propagate PakHub's mission of "reclaiming Pakistan's heritage" - . Rama's arrow 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Really, I dont care about your accusations. I have been accused of having an agenda, being an Anti Semite, being a Genocide Denier, having Jihadist views, being Anti Hindu, and being Anti Sikh. Your false accusations dont affect me anymore. Not to mention, you have used these accusations in the past to extend my blocks. You still cant explain all those Anti Islam, and Anti Pakistan edits Bakaman and company make, and your efforts to actually stop them --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pakhub is free for anyone to join and post their arguments fairly.All sides of the story invited to be heard.There is no rule that says you can't post your side of the story.Take user Ragib for example who stated he preffered calling pre-British South Asia "India" as oppossed to "South Asia".I was interested in why he wanted that.I then invited him to post his comments on Pakhub and use some supporting details to support his arguments.His views obviously go against what Pakhub stands for,but the reason I invited him was because it's a site that all sides of an issue can be heard.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Siddiqui's sockpuppetry

3) Siddiqui (talk · contribs) has used sockpuppets abusively. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Siddiqui edit wars

4) Siddiqui (talk · contribs), has an extensive history of edit warring, with eight out of his ten blocks being due to edit-warring and explicit 3RR violations. . In particular, the most recent block based on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui, consists of a quadruple violation of WP:3RR

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Siddiqui has engaged in tendentious and aggressive editing

5) Siddiqui (talk · contribs), has engaged in tendentious and aggressive editing, inserting original research and commentary, (, ), and using advocacy websites which do not qualify as reliable sources (, ), using sockpuppets to edit war and reinstate them (Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nadirali

6) Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has perpetrated extensive personal abuse on the lines of religion, nationality and race (, ).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a finding of fact.There is an entire category of Indian administrators.There is no category of Pakistani admins,nor is user:pepsidrinka (a Pakistani admin) really active on wikipedia as well as being totally unware of what pakistani users are going through.So with that we have really no admin who would sympathise with us.What's more is these Indian admins are edit warring on South Asian articles and blocking Pakistani users for trying to rescue them and endorsing bans on Pakistani users.I'm sure everyone can see the imbalance here.--Nadirali نادرالی

Ramas Arrow: Making people aware of issues is not a block worthy offence. Especially not when Nadir wasnt the one making extreme comments, which you have a history of ignoring. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am accussed of "sockpuppetry" for modifying my own comments on the Star Wars talkpage.I simply forgot to log in and modified them from my home IP where I have posted from under my username.I am posting from that same IP right now under my username.sockpuppetry is using multiple accounts to cheat on votes or to edit war on articles.What deeptrivia did is what looks more like what RA is falsely describing me of doing.If you see his blocklog you can understand his abuse.--Nadirali نادرالی

I'm sure deep was unaware that arguing in a sane manner is considered sockpuppetry. I guess we all didnt read that non-existent clause in WP:SOCK.Bakaman 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But then again, I worship the sun and the moon, according to the user in question.Bakaman 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias against Indian editors

7) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Unre4L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have expressed prejudice based on the nationality of Misplaced Pages editors (, , ).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 18:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments made in frustration after Indian users refused to listen to any arguments and proposed ignoring everything we had to say, and proposed reverting articles carelessly. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no bias against Indian editors. Unless someone tries to Indianize irrelevant articles or tries to put excessively and superfluous India-centric material into articles related to Pakistan and Islam, I never bother even seeing the user's page. User:Rama's Arrow has a nick name which openly says: "I am an Indian". I tried to avoid him partly because of his username which seemed to me very religious and nationalistic (no offence intended) until he blocked me. User:Anupam on the other hand has shown more nationalistic traits than religious. At some points I successfully convinced him agaisnt his edits and he backed off (which I appreciate). It becomes furstrating when he finds new articles to put nationalistic material in. I have always tried to avoid other Indian editors because of fear of edit wars and heated debates; and secondly because of my lack of knowledge about their favourite topics. Recently, an Indian editor has made some minor but important changes to my favourite articles for which I am thankful to him. I couldn't see the need for those edits before. Szhaider 03:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Szhaider's attack on Anupam

8) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gathered "evidence against" user:Anupam() that only serves to illustrate his "Urdu-chauvinism" and violation of WP:POINT and WP:SOAP (, ).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 18:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My evidence proves User:Anupam's "Hindi-chauvinism". I do not concern about Hindi in India-related articles where I find it relevant. The provided evidence is about only Pakistan and Islam related articles where he has tried to indianize them with irrelevant scripts and out-of-context categories. See comment by User:Zora when he tried to gain his support for devangari scripts. Szhaider 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I find Urdu scripts in many India related articles irrelevant, however, I do not question them because User:Anupam (who mostly puts them there) being an Indian has firsthand knowledge about India related articles and Indian Wikipedians should be deciding about them. Szhaider 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of him being christian. I never said his edits were religion based. His edits are nationalistic rather than religious. Szhaider 16:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seconded - Anupam is a respected user, and has proved to be a neutral voice in the whole scripts issue.Bakaman 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Szhaider's remarks about User:Anupam's Hindu chauvinism are comical given that he is a Methodist Christian going by his userpage. Amey Aryan DaBrood 14:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprmans Extremely Racist and Offensive comments (Unpunished)

9) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• "I'm sorry did you take the time to read WP:Undue weight ? Let's talk about pedophilia and Mohammed shall we? Or purdah? Or slavery?"
• "mhmm. considering Pakistanis enjoyed killing them" in response to "some ppl seem reluctant to accept existance of racial and religious problems in post-independence India" edit summary

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed because of provocative insult of Prophet Muhammad. Szhaider 07:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The massacre of Bangladeshis by Pakistanis (note pakistani is not a race) is well noted. It was one time in Bangladesh of communal unity when Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians were united as their blood flowed down the Jamuna river. O and btw, Muslims are not a race either, there are whole articles devoted to such subjects I discussed such as Aisha's age at marriage, Purdah, and Islam and slavery. Perhaps Unreal in the zeal of the situation forgot to mention that comment was aimed at a banned troll MinaretDk (talk · contribs) who was found to be a sock of His Excellency (talk · contribs). Its not the first time unreal has engaged in misrepresentation of links, infact I could hardly expect more dignified conduct.Bakaman 05:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Minaret is Bengali, and he was banned 4 days after your comment. Nothing justifies hate speech. Have you ever heard any other (involved parties) users making similar comments about Hinduism? Rama banned me for saying "I will let you take your words back", since he thought that was a harsh reply. I still dont know how he could ignore that. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

While Bakaman's remarks on Prophet Muhammed are to be reprimanded and are not at all Hindu-like (in terms of religious insensitivity), it should be remembered that this was no worse than the implication by Minaret that Hindu scriptures (smriti), actually teach Hindus to commit sexual atrocities on Dalits, which is completely untrue, considering they do not even mention the caste system, rather they mention a system or varnas. — Nobleeagle 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cherrypicking comments are we? Amey Aryan DaBrood 14:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Cherrypicking? At least I dont make them up. You specifically accused me of "genocide denial" when I was referring to the Indo-Pak migration. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 15:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

MinaretDk is not bengali unre4l, he is Persian pretending to be Bangladeshi. But then again, what do I know, I'm the son of a donkey according to esteemed Minaret. I'm not even bengali and I could understand the vulgar nonsesnse and hate-speech that emanated from his keyboard. Oh and I never made any allegations against Mohamed, I merely stated a connection that has been documented. Not anything compared to minaret alleging that South Indian priests (a.k.a. my ancestors) raped dancers in temples. Hate begets hate unreal, though your advocacy for banned trolls is not surprising.Bakaman 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I condemn all the insults he threw at you, but your comments cannot be compared to those. You lashed out on Muslims, with a very specific comment which has been exaggerated to insult Muslims since the recent War on Terror. You should know the respect billions of people hold for the Prophet, and sorry, but I dont assume faith because your intentions were very clear.

I have been avoiding a lot of topic, to not unnecessarily insult Hindus, and I thought you would have the slightest respect for that. Apparently not. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 17:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So noting a connection between a dead man and certain unsavory (yet historically documented) acts is worse than calling whole clans rapers of women? Or calling an alive man son of a donkey? The comments werent aimed at you, they were aimed at MinaretDk (talk · contribs) who turned out to be BhaiSaab (talk · contribs). I have no respect for BhaiSaab and have no qualms insulting a banned troll.Bakaman 17:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You never stop twisting things do you? The 2nd part of your comment (about the rapes) was added Later, and I didnt see it when I replied to your comment . You can insult "banned trolls" all you want, but preferably after they get the ban. And also dont insult every muslim who reads you comments, when insulting these "trolls". Thank you. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 20:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprmans Reverts of Sourced facts and disputed tags

10) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Reverts a figure backed up with several sources, with a figure backed up with no sources. No explanation provided
• Reverts of Disputed tags

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There has to be something on the talk page. Anybody taking what amounts to a glance at the template would notice that. Your "several sourcees" included party and company websites and also involved selective quoting of a certain website ignoroing the all around lower estimated the site takes.Bakaman 05:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This user has been actively disrupting all Pakistani and related articles to fit Indian POV.This has been going on for a long,long time.--Nadirali نادرالی

Disruption is a very big word coming from a user blocked multiple times in the last month for disruption. Cut to the chase, just call me a Hindu fanatic. infact articlewise I can safely say I have added more to Pakistan related articles than you without needing to waste my time spamming for off-wiki forums and creating vast conspiracies about India cabals and WP:POINT violations.Bakaman 04:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian users have been trying repeatedly to recruit meatpuppets

11) {Indian users continues meatpuppetry} another thread on the same site where Indian users are attempting to recruit meatpuppets to edit war against us.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by Arbitrators:

Unless you can show which user it was, then it isn't really useful, because nothing can be done about it. The ArbCom has traditionally not made FoF on things that can't be addressed in anyway, as there would be no remedy which could target anything.

Comment by parties:

Here is the exact quote from a user who calls himself Paramveerchakra.

• "One thing. If anybody decides to join wikipedia, do not mention that this forum sent you. This is so because I could get banned for "Meatpuppetry" (soliciting editors from off wikipedia) which is technically disallowed." --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 22:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Can you even prove it is any user involved in this arbcom? I for one am not a member of any forum, and any meatpuppet solicitors trying to accuse me of joining them in crime would be incorrect.Bakaman 05:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Siddiqui

1) Siddiqui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I support this idea. Siddiqui's disruptive activities have spread over 1 whole year. Rama's arrow 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: He has done valuable work in Pakistan related articles; work which no other Pakistani has been able to do so far. If his sockpuppetry is proved he should be banned for maximum one month and given strong warning. His sockpuppets could be banned indefinitely if he does not claim them his alternate accounts. Szhaider 07:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:Look at all the barnstars he got from different people.He has already recived such lengthy blocks if you see his block log.What's more is we have no solid evidence that his alleged "sockpuppets" are all the same user.They could be from the same apartment building or the same office.Atleast Siddiqui should be given a chance to explain this allegation against him.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Support: Heck... even Hindutva trolls like Hkelkar have made more productive contributions than your triad put together. Siddiqui has gotten away with disruption too long. Amey Aryan DaBrood 14:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - He was involved in the rajput scandal as well.Bakaman 20:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow

2) Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is stripped off of his Admin status

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Szhaider 06:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse.He has abused his priveladges too many times.He has used these priveladges to his advantage to push his nationalistic and religious POV.--Nadirali نادرالی

Hmm.... Interesting, no doubt but 'on what grounds? Other admins endorsed the blocks I made, which were well-grounded in rationale and policy. The only question arose over Szhaider's 1-week block, but after my explanation and a discussion at ANI, no admin felt the need to revoke the decision - Szhaider, for his part had lodged several unblock requests and e-mailed another admin. Rama's arrow 15:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Ramas arrow seems to only block specific people, and ignore certain people, no matter the magnitude of their violations. For every one of our "violations", you can find an ignored violation 10 times worse. And Several admins disagreed with his blocks, and have criticised him for being too hard on Pakistani users. As I understand it, an admin even disagreed with your proof for banning minaret. I dont know much about it, but the proof didnt seem to be too decisive.--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that most of the people coming to Rama's defence are Indian nationalists he has been helping in the first place. Evidence against them can be found here.

As for Admin:Ragib. He has questionable conduct himself. For instance, a few months ago he blocked User:Kumarnator for only 24 hours , 6 day after he called me a "f**king wanker" and threw some hate speech around. . Now, I am assuming the block handed out 6 days after, was in response to the insults.

Apologies: Sorry, my bad, looks like this user was not banned at all for calling me a "f**king wanker". What a relief.

Now this conduct is questionable, Because comments by Pakistani users like these are considered "Insulting"

• "I doubt you would support renaming the History of India article to History of Indian Subcontinent. I will let you take your words back."
• "History of Pakistan is the history of the Pakistani people and their ancestors. You cant remove any of our history because it doesnt satisfy your POV"

And these "Insulting" comments got me a 1 week block. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

How is Kumarnator's block related to your block? Firstly, I haven't blocked you, ever. Secondly, Kumarnator (talk · contribs) had been blocked for a totally different reason, that is, the personal attack on Nadirali. He had been warned for the comments made against you, as is customary with other editor's first offences. So how does this make my action questionable? --Ragib 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted an apology for the misunderstanding. But you are basically saying Rama is a fair admin after those blocks, which were handed without a warning btw. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 01:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I have had more contact with RA than Szhaider and Nadirali and I can vouch for his honesty and integrity as an admin. This action is too much, perhaps a suspension would be more adequate. I believe if RA were to re-undergo RFA he would pass again. — Nobleeagle 07:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous and vindictive... This proposal deserves to be deleted without a second glance.. Amey Aryan DaBrood 14:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose What, strip an admin of his status because he blocks (with the support of other admins) uncivil abusive POV nationalistic editors? His admin blocking log shows that he also blocked Indians Hkelkar, Sarvabhaum, and Freedom Skies at various times. So don't be fooled by cries of RA being biased. We need more even-handed admins like Rama's Arrow, who show the willingness to stop abusive POV nationalistic editing by all sides. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is a joke.Bakaman 19:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Without commenting on the arbitration proceedings, I'd just want to say that Rama's arrow has been a phenomenal editor. I have cooperated with him on several articles' FA drive. He has been equally strict with misbehaving users of Indian origin (Hkelkar, Freedom skies etc. are some examples). I can say that he has been more or less neutral in handling the very sticky mess of edit disputes in India-Pakistan related articles. --Ragib 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Rama's Arrow is scrupulously—even generously—fair-minded. Accusations that he is an Indian nationalist are demonstrably belied by his blocks of Indian nationalist editors Hkelkar and Freedom skies, indefinitely in the case of the former.
  JFD 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Rama's Arrow is a balanced fair editor. More or less neutral, as Ragib has asserted.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nadirali

3) Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing for 1 year for major and persistent violations of WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT, WP:DE, WP:OR, WP:SOCK, WP:AGF, WP:MEAT and WP:OWN.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 16:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose- On what grounds? You have a history of using misleading evidence. You even called this a harsh reply "I will let you take your words back", and got me blocked for it. None of your diffs add up. At least give some sources for our "offences". Explanations for all of your accusations have been posted. I cant see how you keep pursuing this matter.

I have already been through 3½ weeks of blocks, Szhaider and Nadir have also been through weeks of blocks caused by you in the first place, which were handed out by the same misleading evidence. You cant justify anything you are proposing. Looks like an act of desperation because Szhaider proposed that you be ripped of your admin status. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose : If you had kept a check on people who warred against Nadirali you could have prevented any or all conflicts. But you, Rama, became a silent supporter only banning users from Pakistan. Szhaider 16:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question.Who wrote these articles and spent hours writing them and correcting them:

• Jack the Giant Killer (film)
• Kerwin Mathews
• Judi Meredith
• PIA flight:554
• World Sindhi Institute

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nadirali (talk • contribs).

A better question is who wrote Rana Bhagwandas ? Who was a amjor contributor to Deepak Perwani ? Bakaman 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse: Amey Aryan DaBrood 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

EndorseBakaman 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Szhaider

4) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing for 1 year for major and persistent violations of WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:POINT, WP:DE, WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT, WP:AGF, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:OWN.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 16:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose- On what grounds? You have a history of using misleading evidence. You even called this a harsh reply "I will let you take your words back", and got me blocked for it. None of your diffs add up. At least give some sources for our "offences". Explanations for all of your accusations have been posted. I cant see how you keep pursuing this matter.

I have already been through 3½ weeks of blocks, Szhaider and Nadir have also been through weeks of blocks caused by you in the first place, which were handed out by the same misleading evidence. You cant justify anything you are proposing. Looks like an act of desperation because Szhaider proposed that you be ripped of your admin status. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You can list as many policies as you can but you must realize that you too have violated all of them at different occasions. Instead of facing cases against you at WP:ANI you opened a case with ArbCom to evade WP:ANI cases. From the day you banned me, it seems your entire focus is on banning Pakistani users, an obvious bias against Pakistanis. These Pakistanis happen to be strong critics of your activities. No doubt you have developed strong animosity against them as they have resisted extremely controvercial edits by many Indian editors. Szhaider 16:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose-He has already been blocked several times and for extensive periods like other Pakistani users.If his acts are seen as offensive by Indians,then his blocks are much more than enough.If he is to be blocked for disagreeing with Indian POV,then Indian users should be banned for 10 years since his alleged "violations" cannot be compared to that of the Indian users.I'd also like to note that it was other biased Indian admins like Samir who endorsed his unjustified block,not neutral admins like Dab.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Endorse: Amey Aryan DaBrood 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Throws the word Hindu in a manner like Pakistani politicians do to Krishan Bheel.Bakaman 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Unre4L

5) Unre4L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing for 1 year for major and persistent violations of WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:POINT, WP:DE, WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT, WP:AGF, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:OWN.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 16:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds? You have a history of using misleading evidence. You even called this a harsh reply "I will let you take your words back", and got me blocked for it. None of your diffs add up. At least give some sources for our "offences". I have already explained why your accusations of Sock Puppetry are False and almost disgusting. You falsely accused me of Anti Semitism, and when I tried to direct your attention to my talk page for my defence, you blocked me for "Block Evasion" without reading my defence.

I have already been through 3½ weeks of blocks, which were handed out by the same misleading evidence. You cant justify anything you are proposing. Looks like an act of desperation because Szhaider proposed that you be ripped of your admin status. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 16:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose : If you had kept a check on people who warred against Unre4L you could have prevented any or all conflicts. But you, Rama, became a silent supporter only banning users from Pakistan. Szhaider 16:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose-He is a good contributer and has done nothing to deserve such a ban.There is no solid evidence that he violated anything by disagreeing with Indian POV.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Endorse: Amey Aryan DaBrood 16:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse - We wasted a month on Talk:History of India listening to him pointlessly argue with every user that came along with a sane idea.Bakaman 02:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Whats with the insults? However talking about "Sane" ideas, you mean, Ideas like:

Lets pretend Pakistan doesnt exist and refer to their ancestors as Indian, even though the people of Pakistan have been known as "Indians" for less than 100 years since the beginning of time. Not really an idea since its already happening on WP. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anupam

6) Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned about his inclination to the addition of irrelevant and alien (often Devangari) scripts to Arabic, Islam and Pakistan related articles causing disruptive situations. Such actions by him in future should result in 12 hours of block for him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed : Szhaider 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse  : There is no justification for adding misleading content into articles such as adding Indian alphabet into Pakistani articles,which gives readers the impression that Pakistanis are "Indians".--Nadirali نادرالی

To quote a famous American general - "Nuts." Rama's arrow 16:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Szhaider 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rama was commenting on content.Bakaman 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Many users have even asserted that Anupam is more pro-Urdu, this proposal is a poor attempt to deliberately edit out the norms in a specific geographical region.Bakaman 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As I noted at User_talk:Anupam#Your_Urdu, most of Urdu scripts that he has added are completely wrong. In at least one instance, He replaced a right Urdu script with wrong one. I cannot say if he is Pro-Urdu or Pro-Hindi, however, he has been adding Devangari scripts where they do not belong. Szhaider 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Szhaider, you are personally attacking Anupam by trying to frame him in a conspiracy with empty "evidence" full of holes. Anupam is not party to this case. It is your paranoia that is self-evident here, not Anupam's "guilt." Rama's arrow 02:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rama, you are clearly taking sides here. You interpret simple criticism as personal attack that is why I want your admin privelages taken back. Anupam's conduct has been extremely disruptive. Here is my question, what is his logic behind filling up Pakistan related articles with Devangari scripts? Szhaider 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Siddiqui - subject ban

7) Siddiqui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing India- and Pakistan- related articles (including articles on Indian an Pakistani people) for one year. If he edits disruptively on their talk pages he may be briefly blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This should then extend to the Indian users as well,since they are the reason for all these edit wars which have caused the articles to be protected repeatidly at different times.--Nadirali نادرالی

The year of hell-raising on Siddiqui's part mandates nothing but a complete ban for 1 year, minimum. Rama's arrow 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to an outright ban. Could perhaps be extended to others as well. David Mestel 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman

8) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing South Asia related, and Religion related articles for 6 months. This user has violated every Policy out there, and not been Blocked for any of the evidence about to be presented. Including making Insulting/Racist Remarks, Extensive Edit warring to promote India and Hinduism against random users, aswell as making fake signatures to cause trouble for his victims.
The following evidence of Edit warring to mostly promote Hinduism is from THIS WEEK only (12th-18th Feb), and against lots of users, not just Pakistanis. This user has edit warred so much that its baffling. The fact that he is getting away with this is questionable. His reverts are usually caused by other users adding information to Hinduism related articles which doesnt sit well with his PoV.

Evidence of Insults and Racist remarks, including:

• "I'm sorry did you take the time to read WP:Undue weight ? Let's talk about pedophilia and Mohammed shall we? Or purdah? Or slavery?"
• "mhmm. considering Pakistanis enjoyed killing them" in response to "some ppl seem reluctant to accept existance of racial and religious problems in post-independence India" (edit summary)

Evidence of adding other peoples signature to racist comments and happily ignoring the "mistake" when it was being used as evidence against the opposing party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse These are just a few examples of his disruptive behaviour.His comments clearly reflect on his attitude.--Nadirali نادرالی

Endorse : Evidence about his POV pushing is quite strong and overwhelming. Szhaider 05:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The RFA is not about me, the RFA is about a certain group of Pakistani users obsessed with turning wiki into a battleground. My work on categorization and attempts by other users to stymie it are hardly relevant to an RFA about the "hijacking of Pakistan's history". In fact I can safely say that no diff that unre4l has posted and gave running commentary on deals with any party to this dispute.Bakaman 02:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because Rama started this RFA, and only included a few chosen people (some who have never even spoken to each other). I will include everyone involved in this drama, and if you didnt want to be included, you shouldnt have helped present fake evidence against Nadirali, and constantly insulting everyone. Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 03:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when did I "present fake evidence"? Infact no diff listed pertains to any user listed in this dispute, proving your attack on me is a dastardly attempt to bring about mutually assured destruction, nevertheless that isnt going to happen. Now that you have decided to act as if arbcom is a dumping ground for your personal feuds, it seems quite funny that only a certain group of users seem to support/oppose each proposal, all of which have come to wikipedia around the time of hkelkar's arbcom, one of which was a sock of user bhaisaab. Your advocacy for a bigoted sock of a banned troll is peculiar, as well your continued attempts at turning this page into a loudspeaker for your fringe views.Bakaman 04:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think nadirali and unre4L's real motives are to get rid of all moon worshippers from Pakistan related articles so that they can take their history and own it.Bakaman 04:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also love szhaider's claim for evidence abounding. The three biggest Pakistani nationalists pretending they can have some sort of objective view on the situation is hilarious.Bakaman 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The hilarious thing is that you want to get away with your offences. And are you saying Me, Nadirali and Szhaider are Sock puppets of each other? We have had experience with everyone of you, and I specifically have tried to talk to you guys about it, which was blown out of the air, since you "didnt speak to Genocide Deniers".

Fake evidence being the signature of Nadirali you added to a racist comment, and the "mistake" wasnt discovered until Nadirali had to point it out to you, even though you had been using the diff all over the place.

As for name calling, there is no shortage of insults you have thrown at Muslims and Pakistanis, Most of them being a few dozen degrees more offensive than anything Pakistani users got frustrated enough to call you. Seriously though, at one point I thought I accidentally changed my signature text to "my name is Idiot", since that was my new nickname on edit summaries.

Regarding this Arbcom. The evidence of you breaking the rules is enough, since Rama has always kept a close eye on South Asia related articles, and Nailed Pakistani users on the head with weeks worth of bans for the slightest slip up. And then we have users like you, roaming through these articles, changing facts to fit your own PoV. And I dont mean reverting specific users. You have been reverting EVERY USER who posts information you dont agree with. Not to mention the insults. 6 months is a joke.

Like I said before. Rama chose his own candidates for this arbcom. He should have included you and the rest of the users who have been the main causes of our blocks. I regret not trying to debate more with you guys, but seriously I tried. You and other users openly told everyone to ignore my argument. Besides, Rama started this ArbCom. Even though there was no clear reason since all the involved parties recently came out of blocks when this arbcom was initiated. The only reason I can think of was, because we tried to file a complaint against him, and he responded minutes later with this arbcom. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 06:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as the proposal is unfair It is very unfair to comment Bakaman is promoting only Hinduism and related issues. In Sri Lanka conflict, he voiced for Anton Balasingham, a Christian Tamil .

Most of the evidence indicated below are not necessarily promoting Hinduism against other users. The following are only the editor’s own interpretation best to his knowledge on historical issues.

Pakistan and India are situated in the cross roads of many civilizations and their people are having various cultural-blends and ethnic-admixtures , So it is natural, wikipedia editors will be caught up in a mess on historical issues with their own ways of interpretations whether they are Pakistani or Indian editors. I went through the whole issues on Requests for arbitration and I feel on personal level, Pakistani editors also having some grievances and should be sorted out mutually.Rajsingam 11:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Indian admins

1) {Administrators should be banned from trying to resolve disputes related to their nationality or religion}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed enforcement is for methods of enforcing the proposed remedies. This is means, eg, enforcing a ban by blocking a user....Or is this supposed to be a proposed priniciple? Or do you want a motion to stop Indian admins from blocking Pakistanis? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I propose this.As I pointed out,we have an entire category of Indian admins.They have been involved in frequent edit wars.Gnashk has been tagging Pakistan and Iranian articles with Indian banners,angering users from both countries.Samir another Indian admin supported banning Szhaider and Unre4L's lengthy block.Rama has been engaged in long edit wars and has been repeaditly blocking Pakistani users.We have no Pakistani administrator here (pepsidrinka is mostly away and has no idea of what's going on).No one who would sympathise with us here our side of the story because we're stuck with Indian admins always coming in the way.Neutral admins are not really active in India-Pakistan disputes.We are then stuck with Indian admins using their tools to enforce Indian POV on Pakistani users.If neutral admins were monitering South Asian disputes,it would help keep wikipedia's NPOV in check on all articles.I find Indian admins (only most of them NOT all of them) almost impossible to deal with.Keeping Admins from neither countries to monitor this ongoing dispute would help make the situation alot easier.--Nadirali نادرالی

Endorse . Indian admins like Ramas Arrow clearly dont have the ability to stay neutral in debates regarding anything South Asian related. Pakistani users have been banned for simply questioning Indian PoV, while Indian users got away with extremely Racist comments. At least Admins shouldnt be taking actions against users in such disputes and leave it to Neutral admins.

I am not saying all admins are like this, but Indian members only seem to seek help from Indian admins. Which is clearly unfair. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ 23:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Support : Both Nadirali and Unre4L are right. Even on this example, there are links to insults by Indian users which are potential for extreme consequences (no threat intended; just facts of cultures) if they were used in real life but were ignored and only warnings were used while blocking privelages were used to harrass Pakistani users who questioned credibility of material provided by Indian users. Even on this page, Rama's Arrow is constantly trying to to harrass Nadirali, Unre4L and Szhaider by counter-accusations of extreme nature. Szhaider 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the paranoia consuming Nadirali, Unre4L and Szhaider is characteristic with the kind of proposals and statements they have been making. They are converting this workshop to a battlefield. Rama's arrow 02:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose as the proposal is ludicrous - This has to be the worst proposal made. You may not know this but all admins go through what is called a Request for Adminship where they receive votes based on their merit. Admins who have been accused of pro-Indian bias have sometimes received more than 100 support votes in their RFA. If there are no Pakistani admins maybe that's something you three should strive towards instead of getting into such disputes. You can't stop admins editing or resolving disputes, because admins are picked from all over the world so that they can cover articles relating to different parts of the world. This is impossible. — Nobleeagle 06:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: