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

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:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral Point of View

1) Wikipedia'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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

2) Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

3) Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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:

Agreed, for User:Nadirali and User:Unre4L. [1]--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 11:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Agreed Nadirali نادرالی

Agreed Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed - Baka man 01:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

5) Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed. Baka man 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

9) Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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 Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed upon.--Nadirali نادرالی

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

Comment by others:

Agreed.Baka man 17:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed: [2], [3] David Mestel^(Talk) 10:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. [4],[5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed: Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 12:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SecondedBaka man 18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed : Szhaider 07:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Endorse --Nadirali نادرالی

Endorse Siddiqui 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Clerk note: Discussion moved to talk page. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Oppose - This is amazingly frivolous.Baka man 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Discussion moved to talk page. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^UT 20:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Moved to principles section. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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^(Talk) 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Propose: might help to diffuse tension. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Indian admins

20) {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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I propose this: --Nadirali نادرالی

Endorse --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 23:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support : Szhaider 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A motion to stop Indian admins from blocking Pakistanis. Because (1) as it is obvious in Rama's Arrow's imposed blocks, blocks are often uncalled for and without due process in a way they look like aggression rather than a preventive action which can have unwanted negative affect on Pakistani users (2) edit wars with Admins on sensitive topics compromise their neutrality as they are often involved. (3) Indian users often seek help against Pakistani users from Indian admins and such situations are high potential for partisan decisions. Szhaider 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Siddiqui 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose as the proposal is ludicrous - — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from enforcement per request on my talk page. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preposterous - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Discussion moved to talk page. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of process

1) Requests for arbitration and associated pages should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tone it down, please. Kirill Lokshin 19:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks

1) Incivility, accusations and insulting editors on the lines of nationality, religion, ethnicity and political background anywhere on Wikipedia are serious violations of WP:NPA/WP:DE and cannot be tolerated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 23:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Szhaider

1) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has abused other editors ([6]) and committed racial and religious abuse([7], [8])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Oppose. He has done nothing of that sort.--Nadirali نادرالی

I already have been blocked for three months for these three so-called abuses. What else Rama's Arrow wants? Here it is clear that he is on a mission of constant vengence. During our block period, Rama's Arrow tried to ban all of us permanently by using PakHub discussion but found his own self using false accusations. Finding no other way to permanently ban Pakistani users, he started and ArbCom case with same quest in mind. Now he is calling provided evidence personal attack. It is clear that his actions are in no way in good faith. Szhaider 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose Szhaider has edit-warred for sure, and done it brusquely on occasion, but nothing he has done qualifies as "racial and religious abuse." WP has to be careful about characterizing spur-of-the-moment (albeit animated) edit summaries as "abuse" (racial, religious, or any other). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way, Jose - nothing what he did was "spur of the moment." He reverted and reinserted personal attacks. All his unblock requests included personal attacks. The reviewing admins said as much. That is an excuse nobody can really use, for anybody can make personal attacks and then claim "spur of the moment," "emotionally cornered" positions to justify. WP:NPA would be reduced to a sham in that case. The best anybody can say is that if one's emotions are unbalanced by something, just don't edit. Rama's arrow 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Discussion moved to talk page. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unre4L

2) Unre4L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [9]

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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 ^UT 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Unre4L was both new to Wikipedia and frustrated with what he perceived was an overall Indian bias in many India-Pakistan articles when he created the web site Pakhub. His motivation (as I saw it) was to discuss issues dear to him with people who would be more sympathetic to discussing the issues themselves, rather than edit-warring first. As it happens, I disagree with him on many of these issues like the label "ancient Pakistan," however, there was never any malevolent conspiracy to plan anything against anyone on Wikipedia. This is really a matter outside the purview of Wikipedia. I can't stress that enough. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Discussion moved to talk page. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siddiqui's sockpuppetry

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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. [10]. In particular, the most recent block based on Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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, ([11], [12]), and using advocacy websites which do not qualify as reliable sources ([13], [14]), using sockpuppets to edit war and reinstate them (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui).

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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 ([15], [16]). (7) Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made anti-Jewish and anti-Indian remarks - (a) The vote seemed quite "fair" in the rather short "discussion" of Indian ans jewish voters. (8) Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has threatened other users - [17]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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 ^UT 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.Baka man 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose Again, this issue is being blown out of proportion. Nadirali has edit-warred, and expressed frustration at what he believes was an administrator's complicity in aiding his opponents in those edit wars, but again, that is not "religious," "racial," and "national" abuse, not by a long shot; otherwise, what are we going to call real cases of abuse? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia editors ([18], [19], [20]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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. [21] --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

None of the accusations against anyone of us are true.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Oppose I don't feel that Szhaider has bias against Indian editors. I think he gets upset when he sees (from his perspective) people with lack of expertise editing Pakistan-related articles. He does sometimes use colorful language in his edit summaries, like calling me "Hindu imperialist," a few minutes after Rumpelstiltskin322 (alias Hkelkar) had called me "Indophobe" (and thoughtfully provided a WP link for the term). Is it right for Szhaider to use such language? Obviously not. But, in the grand scheme of Wikipedia-related things, is it such a biggie? I don't think so. Frankly, I was only amused by both characterizations. The bigger problem on Wikipedia is that these India-Pakistan edit wars go on, sometimes endlessly, over nickel and dime issues and much time is wasted, not the language of their edit summaries. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Szhaider's attack on Anupam

8) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gathered "evidence against" user:Anupam([22]) that only serves to illustrate his "Urdu-chauvinism" and violation of WP:POINT and WP:SOAP ([23], [24]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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 [25] comment by User:Zora when he tried to gain his support for devangari scripts. Szhaider 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Question Howcome Jewish editors don't rush to add Hebrew alphabets to Arab-related articles?--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

Oppose Much ado about nothing. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?" [26]
"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" [27] edit summary

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.Baka man 05:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^UT 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^[TALK] [C] 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Discussion moved to talk page. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [28]
Reverts of Disputed tags [29] [30]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.Baka man 05:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Discussion moved to talk page. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^UT 22:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.Baka man 05:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant to anyone: I think that something which someone does outside Wikipedia is irrelevant to decide issues here - the wikipedia community is intelligent enough to draw conclusions from comments and edits available within Wikipedia itself. --Bhadani 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadirali and Unre4L

(1) 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 attempted to spread WP:OR and WP:NEO on article content. ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36])

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true.--Nadirali نادرالی

Spread is an exaggerated word to use when the messages were posted on Talk Pages, and had logic behind them. There is no original research behind them. The argument posted was in other words a protest against Indian Version of history.

As for the main article edits, I still stand by my decision of changing "India" to "British India". Certain users want to use the term "India" for a period where that India didnt even exist. How is that Original Research? Your 2 examples contradict each other. The argument posted on the Talk Page Cannot be original research when you support reverting the Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar edits. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Szhaider

(1) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has attempted to factionalize articles, scripts and references on the lines of nationality, making it a "wedge issue" and violating WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:V and WP:DE. ([37], [38], [39], [40])

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in above three examples I tried to neutralize the articles which Rama's Arrow doesn't seem to like. Since when Abrar-ul-Haq became Indian? Szhaider 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you routinely fail to understand is that script transliterations do not denote nationality. If Abrar's bio introduces him as a Pakistani, how does the Gurmukhi make him any less a Pakistani and any bit an Indian? Rama's arrow 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to see an article from all readers' perspective. When I am curious about an artist about say Finland (a relatively less known country) and I find his name transliterated in French in first line, it will clearly give me an idea that this artist speaks French as his mother tongue, or he is French immigrant to Finland, or French is a language of Finland and all of my three assumptions about the personality are wrong. It means French transliteration is not only giving wrong impression but also is conveying a wrong information about the origin of the personality. In the same way Gurmukhi and Devangari in Pakistan related articles relate these scripts to Pakistan where these scripts are not used or understood at all. It means with such scripts you are conveying false information about the subject of the article and the origing of the subject of the article which is clearly POV pushing and abuse of Wikipedia. Szhaider 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any citation that says people in Punjab have no knowledge whatsoever of Gurumukhi? I haven't heard to Abrar-ul-Haq but his most famous song's name is in Punjabi. I for one find it really hard to believe that every-one in Pakistan has forgotten Gurumukhi in last 60 years. Remember, the line of partition was drawn through the Punjab.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 22:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When something is needed to present in a Wikipedia article, proper citation is needed for that. A citation is not ncessary for what is not in a Wikipedia article. When you stress on putting Gurmukhi in a Pakistan related article then you are obliged to present citation for its relevance. It might be hard to believe but yes Gurmukhi is extinct in Pakistan because of no official recognition for this script. Being a native speaker of Punjabi I am very well aware of it (I am a lucky person who grew up with two first languages). The question arises: What citation do you have that Gurmukhi is used in Pakistan? Wikipedia Articles about Punjabi and Shahmukhi clearly state that Gurmukhi is not used in Pakistan. Szhaider 10:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Question.Howcome Jewish editors don't rush to add Hebrew alphabets to Arab-related articles?--Nadirali نادرالی

Disruption of RfCs

(1) Through disruptive and tedentious editing, Unre4L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) disrupted the proceedings of article RfCs on Talk:History of India. ([41], [42], [43])

(2) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) disregarded RfC consensus on Talk:Doosra ([44]) and re-ingited the dispute.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 02:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Excuse me! I started those RfC, and if anyone disrupted them, it was certain Indian users by flaming me and my argument. I simply replied to their comments. How can you possibly use that against me? And I have never edit warred on those articles either(I broke the 3rr rule once because I didnt know any better, when I just joined, but that had anothing to do with the RfCs) --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have started it, no doubt. But you certainly conducted yourself in a disruptive fashion that derailed the process. Rama's arrow 16:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the debate again to find out who really derailed it. The very first reply was aimed at me rather than the actual RfC, and so was the second, and the third...--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 16:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Another twist of word by Rama's Arrow. A new RfC can be started at any time. Please note that the reasons that I presented were 100% legitimate and undeniable; many of these reasons were never presented or discussed before. Also note that I never posted any messages to any user talk pages requesting input. Also note that the discussion that I started was resolved in most civil way possible without any heated comment from any side. Szhaider 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

He was pointing out the violations of the Indian users which included racial remarks,which went unpunished for quite obvious reasons,while Unre4L got a week block for stating that "160 million people (Pakistanis) are being denied their history".That statement did not violate any policy.--Nadirali نادرالی

Nadirali's sockpuppetry

(1) Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sockpuppetry through 74.98.241.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to evade blocks, edit and revert war on articles, make personal attacks and engage in disruptive behavior - ([45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50])

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So every user who forgets to sign in is automatically a sockpuppeteer? The only time I used this IP during a block was to provide evidence against you to Fowler who proceeded to WP:ANI and informed the other admins.I was honest enough to type my username after each comment when using my IP adress.--Nadirali نادرالی

Yes but the problem arises over the fact that you (user:Nadirali) were blocked from editing Wikipedia as you edited from an ip. Rama's arrow 15:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Unre4L

(1) Unre4L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring and disrupted Wikipedia work to promote a point of view and WP:OR. ([51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57])

(2) Unre4L has edit-warred against consensus to promote his point of view, attempting to disguise his intentions and edit-warring without any intention to discuss - [58].

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 16:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So much for working things out and assuming good faith. This so called "Edit warring" took place when I first joined Wiki

ALL the links you have presented except one, are from months ago, and nothing I havent been punished for already. I edit warred on the Panini article because I didnt know the rules when I first joined wiki, and I got my block for it. You are never going to let it go are you? And the other evidence you have presented is the SAME evidence YOU gave me a weeks blocks for, because it was "Insulting". --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support - He was involved in the rajput scandal as well.Baka man 20:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments only: I have watched Siddiqui since he began editing (I even awarded him an Exceptional Newcomer Barnstar). I also find that he has made great value edition to the Project. A year's ban appears too long though I have full faith that the ArbCom shall decide the case on the merit of the evidences presented to them. --Bhadani 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

We need opnion of neutral admins and users too. Input from predominently Indian users is compromised by the fact they and Rama's Arrow are from same background of nationality (which is the very reason of dispute here).

Endorse. He has abused his privileges too many times.He has used these privileges 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)[reply]

Endorse. Rama's 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 do not know much about it, but the proof did not seem to be too decisive.--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. [59] [60]

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. [61]. 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 does not satisfy your POV"

And these "Insulting" comments got me a 1 week block. [62] --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^UT 01:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Siddiqui 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^[TALK] [C] 07:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Oppose - This is a joke.Baka man 19:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose From the looks of it, it seems that you guys are just trying to get revenge against Rama's Arrow. His actions were discussed by other administrators, and they agreed that what Rama did was perfectly legitimate and was in way a violation of policy. Rama is being fair in every judgment he makes, as provided by Priyanath. This sort of reasoning shows no real justification for desysoping an admin. Nishkid 64 18:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What a joke! Come on, guys. Why turn the wiki community into a free for all. And, please, cut that most of the people coming to Rama's defence are Indian nationalists type of squat. Or else, someone may come up with some squat like all of the people complaining against Rama are of Pakistani origin (and, that would be much truer than the original statement). If we're to avoid nationalistic zeal in editing and comments, we're also to avoid such attitudes in deciding on the proposed action (especially so when the proposal is not supported by a rationale). Aditya Kabir 19:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ridiculous. Beit Or 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It sounds like a joke! We require many more editors like Rama's Arrow to continue adding value to the Project. --Bhadani 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ridiculous indeed — Lost^(talk) 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am not party to this debate, but from my interactions with RA, it is hard to conceive that he ever has done anything worthy of stripping. A warning, perhaps, but RA, to me, was always one of the most level-headed and worthy editors and admins. -- Avi 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I initially wanted to stay away from this as I'm one of the people Rama has blocked. He's not an Indian nationalist and I'm surprised that people are even debating this. Oh, the guy who started this is also a party to www.pakhub.info. I'm sure everyone can arrive at their own conclusions. _{Freedom skies| talk} 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have made a habit of making accusations. I can assure you Szhaider is not a member of PakHub, and I can also assure you that PakHub is not in any way associated with what goes on Wikipedia. PakHub is a site to make people aware of the History issue. In fact, Wikipedia is only mentioned in ONE THREAD: And thats the thread which issues the unfair blocking of some Pakistani users. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not quite, you are associated with that website and Nadirali is associated with it as well. Tell me, Do the people who bought you this monstrosity hold any moral right to call Rama's Arrow a "nationalist? . The lines very clearly speak of him as "Rama's arrow seems to only block specific people, and ignore certain people, no matter the magnitude of their violations." This is a joke, Rama demonstrably does not act on nationalist intentions. Larry Flynt can question the morality of the the Pope but it still would amount to a joke. _{Freedom skies| talk} 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think Rama's arrow should be stripped of his admin status. Although, I think he was a little too harsh with his initial week long block of Unre4L, Nadirali and Szhaider (which he didn't post on WP:ANI) and although I feel he has been more aggressive towards Pakistani editors in India-Pakistan edit-wars, than their Indian counterparts (at least during the time I paid attention to this issue in much of Jan 2007), I have no reason to believe that he is otherwise not a good administrator. Perhaps he should be given some kind of warning. He should certainly be advised to first post on ANI; in addition, I feel arbcom should recommend (not just to Rama's arrow) that in the future, India-Pakistan edit-wars related blocks (unless they are routine 3RR blocks) should really be handed out by admins who are not Indian or Pakistani. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS His recent ban of Hkelkar is no proof of anything since it happened after the issue his supposed complicity (whether fact or fiction) with Indian editors was out in the open. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^UT 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

—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 ? Baka man 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

EndorseBaka man 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatically Oppose There is nothing he has done that comes even close to warrant banning for a year. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler perhaps it may surprise you to learn that wiki isnt a battleground. [63].Baka man 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps it may surprise you to know that the expression "the battle has just been joined" in the post is figurative and an effort to cheer him up, not a notice of upcoming blood and gore. I wonder what you make of Brutus's "Tide in the affairs of men" speech. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly Oppose Despite the rationale, I'd prefer to believe Nadirali to be a valuable editor (please, check his contributions). A 1 year banned way too harsh, when a collective advice may be what it takes. Aditya Kabir 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aditya Kabir, Nadirali needs advice rather than punitive action. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I oppose User Nadir getting Blocked. We need to workout together rather then blocking users. Nadir took many endless steps to secure Pakistani related articles and been working on Sindhi article too. So I do not think he need to be Banned.Khalidkhoso 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly Oppose, suggest mentoring: I was the first person to block Nadirali when he joined Wikipedia back in November. At that time, he was not familiar with WP rules, and had started personal attacks on some talk pages. His recent blocks seem to stem from personal attacks, 3RR etc. So, I suggest strict mentoring, probation as a remedy for his behavior, rather than an outright ban from Wikipedia. --Ragib 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with Ragib. We should provide second chance to those who are capable to learn from their mistakes. --Bhadani 16:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the ban _{Freedom skies| talk} 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 stripped of your admin status. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 - Throws the word Hindu in a manner like Pakistani politicians do to Krishan Bheel.Baka man 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the ban I see that Nadirali has given him the "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar." I suppose that anyone who blatantly removes the mention of the Indian subcontinent and states that he "Removed unnecessary stress on the word "Indian" is a defender of Wiki now ? [64]_{Freedom skies| talk} 01:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^UT 16:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.Baka man 02:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wasting a month (or even a year) is no grounds for banning someone. Unre4L is sincere in his views (even though I happen to disagree with him on many of them, like the use of "ancient Pakistan."); I haven't observed malevolence or deceit in his dealings, and he wasn't trolling. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Is disruptive and his rationale about ancient history can be judged here. _{Freedom skies| talk} 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Rama was commenting on content.Baka man 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.Baka man 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So you plan to block him because he's not very good at spelling Urdu words? — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment: Interestingly, Anupam had to face a lot of crap from other users (such as Bharatveer (talk · contribs) ) when he added Urdu scripts to many Bollywood actors/actresses' articles. See Talk:Bollywood, and this rv). So, it may not be correct to claim Anupam is acting Pro-Hindi. --Ragib 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's the point of adding Urdu scripts o bollywood articles?--Nadirali نادرالی

The point is that Wikipedia is about giving information and not owing articles. By the way, in bollywood movies itself Urdu is used to present the casting titles, along with Hindi and English.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to my talk page.) 11:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose just plain impossible. He's a good user, that adds Urdu and Hindi scripts and is always up for compromise. I think the Pakistani cabel here needs to understand that RFaR is not an easy way to get random people blocked. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Being Pakistani(Balouch Sindhi wikipedia)i totally oppose idea of Blocking user Anupam.He is finest editor and he is one who admired me to work on wikipedia when I though of giving up and he is one who helped me so much to stay here in wikipedia and work now days I am working on India articles it is because of him). I award him Barnstar for his endless efforts. If some users think that it is useless to add Devangari then those should be removed rather then Banning such fine wikipedia.Khalidkhoso 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Anupam does sometimes push the Devanagari scripts, but he always does it decently and politely. I have agreed with him on the script additions on many occasions and disagreed a few times as well. I think those issues can be resolved on the talk pages, which I notice Anupam and Unre4L have done a few times. Don't see need for blocks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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, as well 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 does not sit well with his PoV. [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83]

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?"[84]
"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" [85] (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.[86]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose as the proposal is unfair It is very unfair to comment Baka man is promoting only Hinduism and related issues. In Sri Lanka conflict, he voiced for Anton Balasingham, a Christian Tamil [87].

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. [88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106]

Pakistan and India are situated in the cross roads of many civilizations and their people are having various cultural-blends and ethnic-admixtures[107] [108], 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)[reply]

Oppose. From what I've seen, :Bakasuprman was merely resisting extremist users, whose behavior is being discussed here. Please do not engage in vengeance. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Bakaman hasn't been the most civil of users, but this is ridiculous. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humus_sapiens: Oppose all you want, but dont label me Extremist again. Obviously you didnt actually read his comments. All the edits presented have been checked, and are unexplained REVERTS. And I would really appreciate your comments on what has been happening here. The treatment of Pakistani users,the abuse of power by Rama, and the ridiculously offensive comments and reverts by Bakaman.

Nearly Headless Nick: Ok, I will agree you that he hasnt been "the most civil of users", but the block proposal is far from ridiculous, since Rama is proposing blocking me for a Year, and Bakaman obviously didnt have a problem to accept that. No comments from Pakistani users can even be compared to this guys comments, and they are far from simply Uncivil. They are extremely provocative, and his reverts are obvious nationalistic based reverts. I mean, removing anything which makes Hinduism look bad is not the attitude of an unbiased editor. Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 13:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have no problem with endorsing any "imperialist proposal" when nationalist POV-pushers ma are trying to get rid of me, in direct opposition to community input.Baka man 16:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Nearly Headless Nick RaveenS 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bakaman exhibits a degree of restraint and reasonability which many of his comrades don't. —JFD 15:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose He just needs to learn to take a few deep breaths before responding to the uncivil attacks of others - that's the only remedy he needs. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the ban. I looked at the diffs and simply see some content dispute. No need to single out one person for ban. This is an unfair practice.Dineshkannambadi 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the ban. I've known Bakasuprman and I have seen his work. After looking at this RfAr, I have to say that there really is no real reason for such a drastic matter. If he has not been banned before, then that means he really hasn't been doing anything wrong (and I know there are many admins that know Baka, and I'm sure if he violated policy, that he would be blocked). Nishkid 64 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Evidence does not support any sanction against Bakasuprman. From my personal experience, I've known him to be a reasonable and productive editor. Beit Or 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes,I know Nadirali to be a fine editor, and I am pretty sure that so can be said of Unre4L and Szhaider. But, what is this talk of banning Bakasuprman, one of our finest editors? This is to much vengence. We still should tell him to be more careful about the way he comments. Not too sensitive at times, right? The prophet has a special place in all devout Muslim's heart. Well, if arbcom is about the good of Wikipedia, I'd propose someone puts a stop to this venom directed against some of our best - Bakaman, Ragib and Rama. Aditya Kabir 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Everything is secondary to building to a true encyclopedia (of course, norms of community interaction should never be transgressed), and I find nothing wrong in Baka's enthusiasm to build the Project and provide it with encyclopedic contents. --Bhadani 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Humus sapiens. Bakasuprman's reverts seem to be in good faith and in fact good edits. All I would recommend is that he take the same deep breath I often am forced to take in similar situations. Arrow740 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From my experience, Baka contributes with diligence and intelligence. 129.89.79.242 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP users contributions look a bit suspicious to me concidering this is one of 2 contributions he/She has made.--Nadirali نادرالی

Oppose Baka has done nothing wrong. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose echoing NHN — Lost^(talk) 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nishikid, who said it better than I :) -- Avi 18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not only has Baka done nothing wrong, he has a collection of barnstars to show for it. His contributions have included the excellently written articles on history of Manipur as well, something which would not have been "excellently written" if not for Baka's involvement. _{Freedom skies| talk} 19:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To (almost) all the people who have opposed above. Nobody is questioning Bakamans contributions. He has made a lot of important contributions on Wikipedia. I know. I am sure you have a lot of good things to say about him, and so have I. But this proposal deals with the comments he made against Muslims and his disruptive attitude towards any users wishing to edit Hinduism articles. If you wish to reply to this, we can talk here. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, his comments may be justified by circumstances and backed up by academic evidence. The people he had to contend with included editors like Szhaider, who just the other day removed the mention of the Indian subcontinent and stated that "Removed unnecessary stress on the word "Indian." [109] Oh, as for the Hinduism article, are we talking about this former featured article or articles such as this, which have fallen into the hands of people like Szhaider. _{Freedom skies| talk} 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ban: Bakasuprman has collaborated with me in writing about articles on Hindu temples in Bangladesh, and also about prominent Hindu personalities in Bangladesh and Pakistan. His area of interest seems to be related to these topics, which is fine. Sometimes, his comments on high-conflict topics are somewhat harsh. But that doesn't justify an outright ban on him from such topics. Perhaps admin mentoring can be a good idea. Baka's contributions to WP is impressive, with more than 28 DYKs under his belt. With proper guidance, he can be a very valuable contributor. So, I oppose any ban, and suggest him to work under an admin mentor. Thanks. --Ragib 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bakaman's conduct does not warrant this degree of punishment. CiteCop 04:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry

1) {Users must face consiquences for it}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I propose this.If Siddiqui can get blocked for inviting his freinds to wikipedia,which he stated openly,then Indian users should face the same consequences for inviting meatpuppets from defence forums as per the evidence.--Nadirali نادرالی

I don't know why this is "proposed." It is already a policy. Rama's arrow 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

But which indian user was it?Baka man 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just block all Indian users one by one and whenever a block results in uproar at Hindu Unity then we know who it is. Seriously, you can't do this. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unre4L

(1) Unre4L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing history-related articles for 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Szhaider

(1) Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from reverting edits on any article more than once.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Nadirali

(1) Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for 6 months for making personal attacks on racial/ethnic/religious/national lines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never attacked anyone.In the case of "Jewish voters" I suggested that because right now Pakistan's relation is not quite fully established with the Jewish commuinties in the west,which would not lead to anyone expecting a positive reaction from the Jews regarding Pakistan issues.It was not meant to attack the Jews in anyway.I simply had a disagreement with the Jewish editors over a small category which I felt violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.You'll be susrpised that I contributed to the Jews and Judaism in Pakistan article.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Nadirali

(1) Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for 1 month for sockpuppetry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of sockpuppetry without even getting checkuser to support your case.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Dmcdevit verified this a while ago.Baka man 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban for nationality bias

(1) Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Unre4L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned from editing for 6 months for persistent bias, accusations and personal abuse against editors of Indian origin, including allegations of nationality-based conspiracies on Wikipedia content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who was it that used the word "Paki" on Szhaider's talkpage? Who created conspiracy theories regarding Unre4L and Pakhub and suggested that users of Pakistani descent could be troublesome?Just something to think about.--Nadirali نادرالی

Comment Please take a look where I suggested banning Bakaman for a 6 months from editing history related articles, for his extreme Racist comments and obvious nationalist based reverts. Apparently that was "Too harsh a punnishment", and here you are suggesting a 1 year ban for misleading "evidence", and countering Indian bias in articles. Obviously the same people above would never oppose this ban, but isnt this exactly what you have given me weeks worth of blocks for before? There should be a principle where an admin can suggest strict bans for something the admin has already blocked the user for in the past (however unfair the ban might have been). --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 03:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral Point of View

Civility

Assume good faith

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

No original research

Avoid neologisms

Edit warring is harmful

Disruptive editing

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Sockpuppets

Conflict of Interest

Meatpuppets

Ban due to disruption

Rollback

Spam

Revert warring by multiple users

Alien scripts

Rama's Arrow

Categorisation of editors

Indian admins

Abuse of process

Personal attacks

Proposed findings of fact

Szhaider

Unre4L

Siddiqui's sockpuppetry

Siddiqui edit wars

Siddiqui has engaged in tendentious and aggressive editing

Nadirali

Bias against Indian editors

Szhaider's attack on Anupam

Bakasuprmans Extremely Racist and Offensive comments (Unpunished)

Bakasuprmans Reverts of Sourced facts and disputed tags

Indian users have been trying repeatedly to recruit meatpuppets

Nadirali and Unre4L

Szhaider

Disruption of RfCs

Nadirali's sockpuppetry

Unre4L

Proposed remedies

Siddiqui

Rama's Arrow

Nadirali

Szhaider

Unre4L

Anupam

Siddiqui - subject ban

Bakasuprman

Meatpuppetry

Unre4L

Szhaider

Nadirali

Nadirali

Ban for nationality bias

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion