Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

message: ===Comment by ArbCom Litigant ===
I would be wary of setting dangerous yet unenforceable precedents here.  --ArbCom Litigant 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further comment: Just as a final word I hope that if this Arbitration does get accepted it focuses on the behaviour of "my friend" (as Rama refers to me) Rama's Arrow's very blatant abuses of privacy in posting private emails on Wikipedia, as well as blatant sysop abuse in blocking people without evidence and basely solely on off-wiki discussions.  In either case - the ArbCom most definitely should not be reading other people's emails - if there is evidence on-wiki focus on that, if there is no abuse on-wiki then what the hell are you here for?--Konstable 04:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-party statements before the case was accepted

message: I would be wary of setting dangerous yet unenforceable precedents here.  --ArbCom Litigant 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by ArbCom Litigant 

message: # Disclosing private email conversations is a serious breach of privacy, email etiquitte, and in some cases in some countries it could even be a crime.
# Emails from most mail hosts are very easily forged, I'm not about to give you the technique but anyone could do it - the receipient of a forged email would not know that the email address is forged unless they compare IP addresses. Of course the receipient himself could, even more easily, forge emails.  There is no such thing as "Email evidence"
# "Off-wiki" is somewhere the Wikipedia ArbCom has no place in, these are not official IRC channels that we're talking about. Or are we going to pass wiki-laws enforcing every single person that has ever edited Wikipedia to abide to Wikipedia policies in their daily lives?
This is a ridiculous request which if granted would probably lead to further breaches of privacy, even if this so-called "evidence" is just shown to the ArbCom members. Unless there is some on-wiki evidence I cannot see how the ArbCom can even consider accepting this.--Konstable 11:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further comment: Just as a final word I hope that if this Arbitration does get accepted it focuses on the behaviour of "my friend" (as Rama refers to me) Rama's Arrow's very blatant abuses of privacy in posting private emails on Wikipedia, as well as blatant sysop abuse in blocking people without evidence and basely solely on off-wiki discussions.  In either case - the ArbCom most definitely should not be reading other people's emails - if there is evidence on-wiki focus on that, if there is no abuse on-wiki then what the hell are you here for?--Konstable 04:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by uninvolved Konstable

message: *In response to the statement above by Konstable: E-mail has actually been used in courts of law, including in criminal cases where the burden of proof is very high and the evidence is vetted very carefully.  Johntex\talk 17:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by uninvolved Johntex

message: I would like to join Aksi above in urging ArbCom to look carefully at these issues. I have no opinion that I wish to share at this point on the behaviour of Nick, the particular admin under scrutiny, though I have been puzzled by some of his actions in the past, and have attempted to tell him so (and been ignored); but I would like ArbCom to examine this issue in the hope that the action taken by Rama's Arrow can be conclusively demonstrated to be within policy. 
I certainly think that the emails presented on AN/I are interesting in one respect: the advice apparently proferred by Bakasuprman to what is presumed to be the banned user HKelkar in an attempt to aid him to evade the ArbCom block and return to WP ("become indispensable...befriend editors...." etc.) are particularly useful in analysing the methods that Bakasuprman himself, a similarly disruptive editor, has used in order to ensure that at the first sign that his record is being examined some otherwise uninvolved editors will turn up and mention that they have never had trouble with him. It is past time for the ArbCom to gird its loins and finish the job begun at the Kelkar arbitration: ArbCom's decision to avoid scrutiny of any editors other than BhaiSaab and Kelkar merely emboldened Bakasuprman and company.
Incidentally, some people seem to think that this is some kind of 'war' between DBachmann and Baka&co. I think that it is instructive to note that before Baka and Kelkar emerged, dab kept to himself on the ancient Indo-European page. When Rudrasharman came here, he intended to edit on the natural history of South Asia or something; I spent years happily pottering around the Roman Republic articles and what not. I dont suppose any of us want to waste our time trying to keep these people from damaging and belittling the project with pseudoscience and fringe historians and journalists. 
ArbCom needs to take this up and settle the matter permanently. Hornplease 10:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by apparently uninvolved Hornplease

message: === Statement by uninvolved user Arvind ===
I apologise for the length of this statement, but the point is, I believe, rather important.
I would suggest that the problem here isn't really cabalism (inherently unpoliceable) or communicating with a banned user off-wiki (only a problem if the user in question is acting as a mere amanuensis, and anyone who's had any dealing with Bakasuprman knows just how absurd that suggestion is).  The real issue is a more fundamental principle: 'Wikipedia is not a battleground.  In this case - as in "India vs Pakistan" case, as well as a whole bunch of other disputes not all of which have come before ArbCom - the real issue is with editors viewing the Wikipedia process as a war against a particular POV which they happen to disagree with, and proceeding to edit - and strategise - as if they were at war.  
This isn't an easy problem to deal with.  It's hard to fault individual acts by these editors. They use "cite" tags and "NPOV" tags and tags you've probably never heard of strictly in accordance with Wikipedia regulations, but in a manner that makes normal editing next to impossible (for instance, a cite tag after nearly every sentence).  They dig up dozens of references and insist on their inclusion - even though the scholarship they represent has long since been superseded or has been seriously questioned - and one then has to waste endless hours trying to demonstrate why those sources aren't credible.  After a while of dealing with this, one just gets burned out, gives up on those articles, or walks away from Wikipedia altogether.
Even more problematic is that in many cases, the editors in question sincerely believe that their actions are helping the encyclopedia.  They genuinely believe that the articles in question are riddled with POV, and actually see themselves as doing little but helping to rid the article of POV (as in the case of Unre4L et al), or they see themselves as standing up for a position that has equal claim to validity but is marginalised by mainstream academic discourse (as in the case of HKelkar).  Yet the effect of their actions is a very big problem, not because they're driving away good editors, but because they're leading articles to be less encyclopaedic and scholarly.  They simply don't see that their actions are deeply coloured by a POV - POV is something the "others" have - so the article will only be neutral in their eyes when it reflects their POV, which is simply not how an encyclopaedic article should look.  
Administrators, unfortunately, don't quite seem to be acting in this area.  Sure, we all talk about WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND but when a user wilfully turns Wikipedia into a battleground, the standard response on WP:ANI is to take it to dispute resolution.  But as is demonstrated by the rash of cases before ArbCom  - and even more starkly, the cases which don't get here because people give up and leave -  this process doesn't work.  Rama's Arrow cited the wrong reasons for his action, but it's obvious that what he was really concerned about was what he saw as repeated and flagrant violations of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND.  I would urge arbitration committee to, in reviewing his actions, focus on the problem of users who see editing on wikipedia as being a war against other POVs, and to offer its opinion on whether administrators can take action, as RA sought to do, and if so, at what stage they may take such action (i.e., how bad does the problem have to get).
I would, accordingly, suggest the following principles which I ask Arb Com to consider in relation to this case.  Drafting isn't my strong point, and it's the underlying principle I'm putting forward, not the wording:
1.  Wikipedia is not a battleground, and editors should not treat the Wikipedia process as a  fight between different POVs.
2.  Administrators may and should take action against editors who breach this rule, regardless of whether they are acting in good faith, including by banning them from individual articles, groups of articles, or where appropriate through blocks.  
3.  Bans or blocks may be appealed through normal avenues.
-- Arvind 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-party statements after the case was accepted 

message: I apologise for the length of this statement, but the point is, I believe, rather important.
I would suggest that the problem here isn't really cabalism (inherently unpoliceable) or communicating with a banned user off-wiki (only a problem if the user in question is acting as a mere amanuensis, and anyone who's had any dealing with Bakasuprman knows just how absurd that suggestion is).  The real issue is a more fundamental principle: 'Wikipedia is not a battleground.  In this case - as in "India vs Pakistan" case, as well as a whole bunch of other disputes not all of which have come before ArbCom - the real issue is with editors viewing the Wikipedia process as a war against a particular POV which they happen to disagree with, and proceeding to edit - and strategise - as if they were at war.  
This isn't an easy problem to deal with.  It's hard to fault individual acts by these editors. They use "cite" tags and "NPOV" tags and tags you've probably never heard of strictly in accordance with Wikipedia regulations, but in a manner that makes normal editing next to impossible (for instance, a cite tag after nearly every sentence).  They dig up dozens of references and insist on their inclusion - even though the scholarship they represent has long since been superseded or has been seriously questioned - and one then has to waste endless hours trying to demonstrate why those sources aren't credible.  After a while of dealing with this, one just gets burned out, gives up on those articles, or walks away from Wikipedia altogether.
Even more problematic is that in many cases, the editors in question sincerely believe that their actions are helping the encyclopedia.  They genuinely believe that the articles in question are riddled with POV, and actually see themselves as doing little but helping to rid the article of POV (as in the case of Unre4L et al), or they see themselves as standing up for a position that has equal claim to validity but is marginalised by mainstream academic discourse (as in the case of HKelkar).  Yet the effect of their actions is a very big problem, not because they're driving away good editors, but because they're leading articles to be less encyclopaedic and scholarly.  They simply don't see that their actions are deeply coloured by a POV - POV is something the "others" have - so the article will only be neutral in their eyes when it reflects their POV, which is simply not how an encyclopaedic article should look.  
Administrators, unfortunately, don't quite seem to be acting in this area.  Sure, we all talk about WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND but when a user wilfully turns Wikipedia into a battleground, the standard response on WP:ANI is to take it to dispute resolution.  But as is demonstrated by the rash of cases before ArbCom  - and even more starkly, the cases which don't get here because people give up and leave -  this process doesn't work.  Rama's Arrow cited the wrong reasons for his action, but it's obvious that what he was really concerned about was what he saw as repeated and flagrant violations of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND.  I would urge arbitration committee to, in reviewing his actions, focus on the problem of users who see editing on wikipedia as being a war against other POVs, and to offer its opinion on whether administrators can take action, as RA sought to do, and if so, at what stage they may take such action (i.e., how bad does the problem have to get).
I would, accordingly, suggest the following principles which I ask Arb Com to consider in relation to this case.  Drafting isn't my strong point, and it's the underlying principle I'm putting forward, not the wording:
1.  Wikipedia is not a battleground, and editors should not treat the Wikipedia process as a  fight between different POVs.
2.  Administrators may and should take action against editors who breach this rule, regardless of whether they are acting in good faith, including by banning them from individual articles, groups of articles, or where appropriate through blocks.  
3.  Bans or blocks may be appealed through normal avenues.
-- Arvind 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved user Arvind 

message: This arbcom is playing out exactly the way I feared it would. I pray that the arbitration committee recognise the following very important facts.
# RA has claimed on ANI that this blocking has nothing to do with accusations and allegations of POV pushing, tendentious editing, incivility etc.,. Who's ever heard of a indef block for violations of WP:CIVIL anyway!
# He has insisted that this blocking was purely about 'explicit' meatpuppetry and obviously the draconian blocks of multiple long standing editors that followed.
Keeping the above in mind, I strongly urge the arbitrators(and the involved parties) to reject any attempts to even so much as touch upon #1. #1 is too complicated and too far reaching to be bundled into this arbcom. It needs a whole new arbcom of its own and the way I see it, there are at the very least another 2 dozen people who can easily be made involved parties to that. It would be a travesty to discuss the issues of #1 with just these half dozen users here. That arbcom would include atleast a dozen admins themselves who've been little more than mute spectators to this nonsense (since almost a year).
* As for #2, I request that solid proof be demanded of RA and Gizza to support their accusations. And even with any such proof they might manage to put together, I request that they be asked to unambiguously and conclusively demonstrate and establish that neither Bakasuprman, Sbhushan or Dangerous-boy would have made those edits but for Hkelkar's 'orders'. Forget B, S or D-boy, I'd be interested to see if they can establish that any editor on wikipedia has followed Hkelkar's orders. Even as RA insists that this is only about meatpuppetry, he keeps falling back on mere 'POV matching' to advance his case. For argument sake, let me put it this way. Would he also have indef blocked these editors, if Hkelkar had 'ordered them' to, say, stop fighting with dab and they had complied? I am sure, he wouldnt have. That alone should demonstrate that this is not merely about these guys taking 'orders' from Hkelkar as is being presented. This is quite simply, a case of 'POV matching' being used to haul people up for meatpuppetry.
I would also pray that the arbitrators note that I hold no truck whatsoever with any of these users that I am supporting at the moment nor do I have anything against RA personally. Bakasuprman for one, had RFCUed me and got me in trouble.  
As for other concerns about breach of privacy that the accused and others have raised, I think their comments say it all. It indeed is a severe breach of privacy and I should point out that I, for one, had vehemently protested(on ANI) against releasing such emails on wiki. I had repeatedly requested them to mail it to the involved and interested parties. But RA released it nonetheless in complete disregard to the pleas of the other editors.  RA has certainly exceeded his brief here.  His brief is NOT to uphold the policies of wikipedia by doing whatever it takes.  What is next?  Bugging the so called 'cabal's' wardrobes and tapping their phones, Enemy of the state style?
Once again, I request the focus to be solely on allegations of meatpuppetry. If the allegations cannot be proven, I pray that this case be summarily dismissed and after some time for everyone to cool off, another one be ordered which will focus on the real issues. The real issues isnt really just about one 'shithole' diff as Aksi has put it. I am sure even he appreciates that it encompasses a whole lot more.  It is infact, evident in all the statements made here by various 'involved' and 'uninvolved' parties. Sarvagnya 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved Sarvagnya

message: I don't know much about the history presented by Dbachmann above. What I do know is that Dbachman has made a number of blanket statements about the beliefs of Indian editors, made aspersions on the character of Indian editors, and pointed to specific users and then made blanket statements about their actions without providing any evidence here. I have no opinion directly on the accusations made in this case as there seems to be absolutely zero evidence presented. The main reason that off-wiki things like email and irc logs aren't allowed is there is very little way to verify them, unless the author agrees. It also is a very sketchy fair-use argument to their copyrighted text. Now, we could discuss at length about whether to have such evidence, but without it being out in the open, it makes the project's judicial process even more cabalistic then it already is. There are clearly very strong feelings in at least one direction here, but without any evidence to act on I don't see blocking being called for. I would suggest that any disputing parties get mediation to figure out exactly what the dispute is. It remains highly unclear. If Rama's Arrow would like to bring evidence to our attention then we might have more to comment on, but it hardly seems right to start taking punitive action over an ill-defined dispute based on evidence received from an anonymous off-wiki source that the claimant refuses to reveal, let alone reveal the evidence itself. I'm not an ArbCom member, but since there is zero evidence presented I would like to suggest that this case be closed without further action other than suggesting that people with disputes participate in mediation to help resolve them. —WAvegetarian (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by WAvegetarian 

message: I don't get it. Reading the conclusions, this says that (1) there's no real evidence, (2) Rama blocked some people, and therefore (3) Rama is desysopped. It seems to me that (3) does not follow, as none of the findings of fact gives a credible rationale for the deopping. Now I'm not saying this is wrong or disagreeing or anything, but reading the outcome of the case it is entirely unclear why the outcome is like that.  I'd like to ask the ArbCom to clarify their findings. 
Furthermore, (4) henceforth, any admin using their power when involved in a conflict will be summarily deopped. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but it would appear to be a new policy, since it does not specify any case or limit or whatnot, and is worded to apply all over the Wiki. >Radiant< 09:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded to a parallel post on WP:AN. (Feel free to move the discussion here if it seems a more logical place.) Newyorkbrad 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request clarification