Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence

message: In my case, a user had posted a private e-mail sent by me to several users at the ANI, and many editors have relished and enjoyed that post, and people had cornered me, and put me to unnecessary stress: I was practically made to kneel down like a criminal and had to beg pardon! There may be several such instances about which I am not aware of. Now, when despite great reluctance, Rama posted the e-mails, people are talking in a different way. My observations show that Rama was forced to post private e-mails to validate his decision as an administrator, and by doing this he did nothing wrong to subvert any of the wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. In my opinion, off-wiki evidences are acceptable under exceptional certain circumstances if it is proved that editors did anything to subvert the decision of the ArbCom. Right now, I do not have any opinion about the merit of the case, and I may come with further comments depending on the progress. --Bhadani (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, this incidence (of my kneeling down) was reported like great news in some google groups! And, no one in a million plus wikipedians asked that user at the ANI that he should not have posted that private e-mail! --Bhadani (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, Bhadaniji.  The e-mails contained real names of contributors, e-mail addresses of contributors, conversation that was irrelevant to the accusations of "cabalism" (but may be deemed sensational by others), and logs of a conversation that occurred on Google Talk that Nirav was not a participant in.  This is private information that should not be plastered all over ANI, under any circumstance.  Posting this was a serious breach of confidentiality in my opinion, and I am quite upset that Nirav does not seem to realize the gravity of his action (by apologizing to people affected, and by requesting oversight of his edits).  In my opinion, this is as big of an issue in this RfAr as the allegations of cabalism -- Samir 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I respect your right to disagree. I may have strong views but I like you all. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Posting of private e-mails

message: :::: Comments:... hah... is this all you've got? you are selectively laying out half-truths and misrepresentations for evidence. It is intellectually dishonest of you to accuse me of participating in reverting warring with Baka, D-Boy and others. If you look closely, i just removed long quotes and suspect statements and put a disputed notice. Also i'd ask administrators to look closely at User:Dbachmann, User:Hornplease and User:rudrasharman's edits to the article and tell me wether they dont constitue tag team editing? Also why wouldnt i vote delete?Afterall i initiated the AfD. I donot speak for others though, it is upto them to explain their conduct.
On Goa Inquistion, i  did not revert war i simply removed a disputed notice, and removed two tags . I have edited only once, hardly constitutes edit warring. For which i must add, i've been subjected to vitriolic personal attacks. Also Aksi has conviniently ignored my efforts to help improve the article and clean it from Kelkar's distortions. .
As for Indian Mathematics i reverted to India Rising, because I believed that User:Fowler&fowler was using that article as a poisoning well to expound his views on Indian political movements by quoting an economist who is neither a mathematician or a political scientist. As I said, to Aksi then, I simply had no idea that Indian Rising was Hkelkar. When Policeman Aksi 'sternly warned and pointed that India Rising was Hkelkar', i promptly reverted my own edit as a mark of my honesty and sincereity . 
Aksi's extreme prejudice and distrust towards me is hard to understand. I have better things in my life to do than take oreders from a neurotic and obssesive Indian PhD student from Texas. Perhaps his good faith dries up for good ole' User:AMbroodEY. I would also ask, if i am going to be questioned for every Hkelkar tainted article i edited? Maybe call for WP:AGF is in order. My article interests are diverse and only some mildly intersected with his...  Amey Aryan DaBrood© 19:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments: I'm disappointed.  This is Aksi's earth shattering evidence?!  This is weaker than pompey's loss of love from the people to ceasar.  Any wiki user here knows i'm involved with hinduisn and hindu-related article.  Hindutva propaganda was, how should I put this in WP:CIVIL terms...ah.. yes...it was not well.   it was put up for AFD, I chose delete.  I don't see how this breaks any policy of the project.  As far as I know,  established users are able to vote on an AFD.  I queztion your motives aski.  maybe it is you who is involved in a cabal.  RA, you, and dagizza, and maybe dab have it in for us?  may the heavens have mercy on you.  I wish you the best.--D-Boy 21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments in resp to Amey: Dont try to mislead . You didnt just remove the tags but also readded the section "Persecution of Muslims" which had happened much before the Goa inquisition. This was after Dboy and Baka had reverted my change once each. You have willingly reverted the same change that they had. nly difference was you hid it along with the removal of a tag. The reference you have provided clearly shows that you participated in the edit-war. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vitriolic attack?? The diff you have show is ramas warning to me, not the supposed vitriolic attack itself. Vitriolic attack or not it does not reduce your role in the revert war. Anyway as I have told you and Rama: if my comments violate Wikipedias policies you can gladly put an ANI notice about me. And your offer of a fresh start was a late repentance , much after this Arbcom had started. It is nothing but a lame attempt to get away from having  to own responsibility for your actions. Also it came with a grand condition: That you are willing to work on the Goa inquisition with anyone except me.
--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to evidence presented by Aksi 

message: In reply to this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Response_to_Deepak_D.27Souza.
#accussing me of vandalism 
#He removed sourced material from the article.. 
:My reply: Valid reason was provided before removing "sourced material" :Talk:Goa_Inquisition#Removing_.22Persecution_of_Muslims.22 
:to which Dboy's response was a revert war(two reverts by Dboy himself , 1 by Amey one by Baka ) :Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence#Revert-warring_in_tandem. 
:He preffered not to discuss, even after putting a message on his talk page :User_talk:Dangerous-Boy#Goa_Inquisition, requesting him to do so.
--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot speak for the other but I thought you were vandal Xandar.  the fact that you were uncivil in the matter did not help.  Seeing your statements with ambroodey, led me to believe you were just another vandal.--D-Boy 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strange! Dboy claims that I have accused him of vandalism , but is unable to state where? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: response to D-Boy

message: Due to personal reasons, I need a few days more time. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far Rama's Arrow and DaGizza have not provided any evidence to support the accusations that they made.  As accused, we can only defend ourselves and provide counter-evidence if we see any evidence.  Till they provide evidence, what is the point in you providing any evidence.Sbhushan 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even I was a bit surprised when I noticed the lack of evidence. I have mine ready, in any case. Just need to organise it a bit. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I apologize for my role in holding up the proceedings. I will 100% submit my evidence on Sunday, May 20th - no further delays, I promise. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will be publishing my case and evidence circa 14:00 hours today, May 21. For prospective, nitpicking abusers wanting to harp about the few hours delay, I have some choice words which I cannot basically say to you on Wikipedia. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence was added but was removed . It may take some time until the majority of it is re-added since I suspect it is sleeping time in the States. GizzaChat © 07:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree most strongly with the oversighting - there is no need. All of those e-mail conversations are vital to highlight at this stage of the case. Additionally, "privacy" has been respected as only relevant segments of conversations have been posted. I will restore the full version shortly. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Should I point out that Hkelkar and co. have relentlessly spammed other users about all this nonsense? Where is their sense of courtesy? I'm sorry but I have to insist on re-posting the specific lines of conversation that are most relevant and provide context. I already told you guys before I submitted my evidence that I would do it like this - why didn't you say anything then. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rama, please do not do that, please do not revert war with Arbitrators. You have been reproached about posting emails two times already, there is unanimous oppossal towards you doing so, no one is sticking up for you posting this evidence, a clerk and an Arbitrator have asked you not to do it. Can we at least wait for the ArbCom to collectively comment on whether this evidence should be put forward? I will request the clerks to contact them to comment on the matter. Or could you yourself please explain why there is not enough on-wiki evidence?--Konstable 22:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More time

message: Sorry to disappoint some of you - I've requested Blnguyen to transfer the orginal text of my evidence statement so I can re-post it without the e-mail excerpts (the text I had prepared was on-wiki draft and I don't have any backups). The sooner he does so, the better. I have transferred all the e-mail evidence in my possession to the arbs (who got some 14-15 e-mails from me this Monday) - now I'll let them figure out the puzzle. A few points to clarify - there was no privacy violation whatsoever in posting relevant excerpts, especially as I was party to most of them. You can argue as much as you like, but that's the truth. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my evidence statement 

message: Rama is presenting his bullshit allegations against uninvolved parties without evidence on the evidence page. I will keep reverting.--Konstable 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, your whole evidence is puked-up shit. Do you find me revert-warring with you? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Konstable, please leave the evidence as it is presented unless otherwise advised, regardless of your view of its merits. The arbitrators know perfectly well how to disregard allegations that are not supported by evidence. Rama's Arrow, please consider whether all of your allegations are supported by evidence and remove any that are unsupported or not likely to be helpful, and also refrain from comments like this one. Newyorkbrad 23:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newyorkbrad, you know very well how even the most ridiculous nonsense presented in the worst of faith can follow someone around for months on end. You know very well that I have been victim of such smear campaigns in the past, and you know very well that though the ArbCom ended up ignoring most of the nonsense, I have been wikistalked and blocked over it later on. You call this evidence? How can people defend against evidence they cannot see? Will this be another thing over me now? First I was a vandal, now I'm an Indian cabalist?--Konstable 23:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will remove the passage if he removes his "evidence," which is lies and bullshit. Makes sense? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, so this is what it's all about, thank's for letting me know. Oh well, I have survived far worse bullshit than yours. So I'll let you have fun with your evidence, I'm out of this case just as I intended, you won't be able keep me in no matter how hard you try. You can continue write however many more essays you want on me - my evidence stays, but I do not. These pages are off my watchlist.--Konstable 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad he's gone - he shouldn't have been around here anyway, let alone edit-warring on the evidence page and launching personal attacks on me. This is none of his business and he can go mope elsewhere. And yes, I apologize for my incivility - I really do regret my behavior. I already tried to straighten out the problems with Konstable, but he reverted my message for a frank discussion. Then he tries to edit-war - hell no, how can I let that pass? Konstable has done nothing but give me cause for aggravation. I'm disappointed with myself, and I'll do my best to never repeat this behavior. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerks needed 

message: I am through with all this bickering - this does nobody any good. I promise not to feed any controversial comments, engage in any incivility, rude repartee or bandying words, etc. If anybody has any sincere questions or "constructive" comments to make, I will welcome them. Any fresh accusations should take a hike - I've heard 'em all. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would approve of anything that can lead to potential progress in this case. By the way, as I mentioned above, if there's more evidence, I need to be aware of it. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's a lie.  RA basically threatened baka at the end of his evidence section reply.--D-Boy 06:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What can rama expect? I am a punk with no integrity.Bakaman 01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, enough bickering