Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence

Terry-J-Ho is not providing counter-evidence, just going on about the usual Hindutva = Right Wing Hindu fundamentalism. He has provided no links to evidence, so should his little section be moved to the talk page? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, evidence is what people think it is, and the arbitrators will read it and decide how much weight to give it. This page can be for discussion and rebuttal of evidence, or discussion of evidence in general. (Sometimes people prefer to add rebuttals to their evidence sections.) Thatcher131 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating between parties...

Hkelkar you state that "Carefully look at my statement. I said "I am USING the blog" i.e. as part of my argument after Trident put it there and I read it.Did I say that I cited the blog?" On my talk page you said that you also qualified "that it is HE [Rao] who said it..." but you've never done that in the article. So where does that portion of your statement come into play? BhaiSaab ^talk 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The qualification was part of my argument. not my edit. My angrezi, it is not very good, you see :) Hkelkar 07:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your angrezi ("English" for non-Indian/Paki parties) is quite alright. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No no. It's terrible. I keep ending all my sentences with "only", my grammar is very bad, my sentence construction is poor. Really quite bad.Hkelkar 07:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should refer to arguments with numbers rather than quoting the whole argument. That way your evidence section is not unnecessarily long. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar, please keep your arguments in your section. Also, do not copy my sentences verbatim as you did here: [1] [2]. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please only edit your own evidence section, although since apparently Hornplease doesn't mind having a conversation in his evidence section, I won't remove it. You can respond to someone's evidence in your own section or initiate a discussion here on the talk page. Thatcher131 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration...

...is proceeding like a farce. Here we have Shiva's Trident permanently banned already, and Hkelkar is going around pretending to have no first-hand knowledge of his activities. What a joke. Dmcdevit and aksi great should have just made their own decision about Hkelkar's account. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may go bad, but is just getting started. Fred Bauder 04:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar is doing nothing wrong, since him and Shiva's Trident are not the same person. Getting an army of editors with nice histories of POV pushing (and little else) won't convince anyone. Get a Nobleeagle, Ragib, or Rama's arrow to make a statement and somebody may actually listen to the fantasical statements of "sockpuppetry", "plagiarism", "tendentious editing" and the rest of the list of whimsy being created on this arbcom.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your description of my few years on WP as POV-pushing and little else. Extraordinary. Hornplease 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity ...

I would like to ask ArbCom admins to propose Hkelkar to stop his spurious responses inside the parties' paragraphs. Thatcher131 has already warned Hkelkar of not doing that but he is doing it again. In particular, I would appreciate Hkelkar's comments to be moved out of my paragraphs and put in his own section, where he will find all the room and liberty to answer calmly. This is an ArbCom case, and Hkelkar has the habit of doing that in every situation.

Please move his edits and place them in his own section, or in the talk page. The Evidence section should be made clear for a good ArbCom case.

I am now in the situation of not being able to add comments in my own section: I have evidences to add, and the weird insertions of Hkelkar's responses make my job difficult.

I will not move the edits by myself. I prefer an ArbCom admin to do it.

Thank you.

TwoHorned 09:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack by TwoHorned

TwoHorned (talk · contribs)

The user has been warned for personal attacks on his talk page (he has altered these warnings which hides this, but is still clearly seen).

TwoHorned has attacked User:CltFn on this page: [3]

He says:
- Since this user has made contributions only on extremely controversal topics (see his contributions [226] which are almost 100% oriented into nasty islamophobic entries), I'm wondering what kind of farce is intented to mean his barnstar for contribution to islamic articles in Wikipedia.[4] --02:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

removed from my evidence

As repeatedly stated below, you are an energetic editor. Indeed, the number of edits you have made, as well as the number of creations, should concern people convinced about your tendentiousness by evidence from elsewhere as to the degree of slant that has been allowed to creep onto WP. Also, as stated many times on this and previous arbitrations, constructive activity in a particular sphere can still mean that the editor as a whole is disruptive. Thank you.Hornplease 12:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs) 15:48, 25 Nov 2006  (UTC)

I apologise for putting that statement in your evidence; I forgot which page of the RfArb I was on. Hornplease 08:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Nobleeagle, Blnguyen, Hkelkar, Srikiet

Nobleeagle's misdeeds against me are amazing. I have learnt that he used to leave my signature before abusing some newcommers (anon. IPs), plz check his contributions. Blnguyen should explain his role on Kancha Ilaiah (wd be better if he breaks his silence). What Hkelkar, Bakasuprman has presented as evidence against me , plz check the diffs doesn't match what he claims. Srikiet sd also explain how come he blnguyen, Hkelkar managed the show on Disproving that Hkelkar is sock of subhash on IRC chat. Srikiet and Blnguyen though were aware of the truth remained silent when Hkelkar misused the censored version to proove He was not Sock, though full version suggests otherwise . When Bhaisaab produced full version he was threatened Block!!!!!! Ikon |no-blast 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't think any of the admins were aware and intentionally lied. Blnguyen didn't think they were the same person because of behavior patters (which I, on the other hand, thought were very similar) but later agreed that they were the same person (although he has not posted this on Wikipedia). I think Dmcdevit was aware all this time but chose not to take action until he had something to further prove his checkuser result. But I and Terry were aware of the sockpuppetry, and it seems that we're now getting in trouble for assuming bad faith of someone we knew was a sockpuppet while the admins took no action for two or three months. If the arbitrators choose to approve the decision that Hkelkar is the same person as Subhash bose, then their decision also implies that Hkelkar has lied to them countless times in this very arbitration. Also, I don't think Nobleeagle is an admin. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]