Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar

message: ===Statement by uninvolved Shell Kinney===
The list of involved parties frequently shows up on WP:PAIN and other admin noticeboards to report each other for various violations.  I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, not as sockpuppet confirmation, but to take a look at the conduct of these disputants. Shell babelfish 09:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by non-parties moved to talk page 

message: The list of involved parties frequently shows up on WP:PAIN and other admin noticeboards to report each other for various violations.  I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, not as sockpuppet confirmation, but to take a look at the conduct of these disputants. Shell babelfish 09:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved Shell Kinney

message: I have been requested to provide a statement regarding this case , particularly as regards my knowledge of user:BhaiSaab conduct as an editor in Wikipedia. I have no experience with user:Hkelkar.  I have found user:BhaiSaab to be an extremely vindictive and disruptive editor who spends a great deal of his time wikistalking other users that he disagrees with,  edit warring and outright harrassing them  to no end , likely in effort to drive them off Wikipedia. It does not surprise me that user:BhaiSaab is continuously involved in conflicts with other editors. It is my experience with user:BhaiSaab that he will resort to every possible stratagem in an effort to bring down other editors that he disagrees with , and he has done so successfully with a number of editors. user:BhaiSaab has been trying to bring down User:Hkelkar for quite some time now, albeit unsuccessfully. --CltFn 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:CltFn|CltFn]]

message: A MedCabal request was filed here.  It may provide some useful background information.  --Ideogram 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commment by [[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]]

message: I have worked with User:Hkelkar in the past and I do not believe that he is a sockpuppet of anyone. In my opinion, HKelkar has contributed immensely to wikipedia and has effectively restored NPOV in many articles where if not for his involvement, it would have resulted otherwise. In addition, he has been involved with improving the quality of many articles relating to the Indian subcontinent.
As for working on the same article, myself and User:JFD have worked extensively on the same articles. Since the both of us have a pattern of working on martial arts related articles.
HKelkar too has a pattern, that of working on articles relating to the Indian subcontinent. He may find many users supporting his POV and consequently get accused of being a sockpuppet or a puppetmaster due to two (or more) users having the same ideology. It has happened to me in much the same way (see here) and turned out to be a false alarm.
Concluding remarks: I've worked with both editors and just because they have converging interests does not mean that they are actually the same person.  I would second User:Syiem and say that Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry in general, is greatly abused. Thank you. 
Freedom skies 02:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved [[User:Freedom skies|Freedom skies]]

message: I would just like to say that this case is of much importance for South Asian editors. There is no doubt that an ideological/religious rivalry defines the involved parties. It is pleasing that ArbCom has accepted this case because I feared for a while that these editors would get involved in open "warfare" on religious lines. While it is important not to make judgments based on facts and not generalizations, I recommend that ArbCom send a very strong message to all involved parties on edit wars and user disputes of a religious/ideological nature. Many of those involved have not made explicit offenses, but they do often bring their POVs into their editing and interactions. Without a strong message, another series of edit/user wars can erupt involving some of these very parties.
I would like to speak in favor of Bakasuprman. He has proven himself to be a very productive editor. His only flaw is that he feels a sort of loyalty to Shiva's Trident - based on pro-Hindu POV. There is also no doubt that he carries a pro-Hindu bias. But he has worked very well with me, Ragib, Raj, Lost and others. He has done a lot to contribute outside controversial topics. Many of his contributions are made with a view of improving the coverage of Hinduism-related articles but often in response to existing Islam-related topics. His participation on WP:CFD debates shows a desire to protect Hinduism-related content in regards to other religion content. While there is nothing wrong about this approach, I fear some provocation in the future might lead to transgression of policies.
While Dbachmann, Dmcdevit and others are very correct in reprimanding him, this editor only showcases why ArbCom needs to make a "line the sand" regarding editing on religious/controversial topics with a POV-bent. He has a lot of potential but must understand WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. He is not a troll or ideologue, but there are some risks that a loss of temper will exacerbate. Rama's arrow 22:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[user:Rama's Arrow|Rama's Arrow]]

message: My comment here is strictly limited to User:Bakasuprman, and I want to clarify that at the beginning, since I am not involved with any of the other parties or issues involved here. I've noticed Bakasuprman several months ago, when he was just starting in English wikipedia. His initial edits had some of the same problems many newbies have because of unfamiliarity with policies, but he has since learnt them (I guess). He does have a strong Pro-Hindiusm focus in his edits (which is ok, we all have our own areas of interest ...). 
Bakasuprman and I have collaborated on the Hinduism in Bangladesh related articles. I mainly work on Bangladesh related topics, and Bakasuprman has helped a lot with enthusiastic edits to help expand the area. His collaboration includes Shakti Peethas, Kantaji Temple, among others. He has done a lot of work in Bengali renaissance and related articles, and thereby filled a void in the 19th century history of Bengal related articles in en-wiki. Coutering Systemic bias is a great thing, and Bakasuprman has helped in this area.
I am not involved in other things Bakasuprman has been editing, especially the Hinduism/Anti-Hinduism battle brewing in the RFArb. The only point of my comment is to say that, while Bakasuprman needs to consider WP:NPOV, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:POINT (as Rama's arrow mentioned above), he HAS done a lot of effective collaboration in a friendly manner with me on Bengal and Bangladesh related topics. I value such collaboration, and it also shows that Bakasuprman can't be blanketly included into Anti-Muslim camp. He has behaved and collaborated with me decently enough to make me believe that he's not following any blindly-POV-pushing agenda, and though he's more interested in Pro-Hindutva topics, he can follow rules and policies. 
As I look into his contributions, it seems that he has, from time to time, went to the support of other parties mentioned in the RFArb and has engaged in revert/edit wars as part of that. In case he's being considered in this RFArb, I suggest giving him a chance to improve his dealings/behavior with other users. I believe that with more restraint, proper control on temper, Bakasuprman can do a lot of contribution in the Hinduism-related topics, without getting into fights like the one that invoked this RFArb. (As I said earlier, my comment is strictly limited to Bakasuprman, as he was named as a party, and my comments here are in no way for or against any other parties or issues or disputes mentioned in the RFArb). --Ragib 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on Bakasuprman by [[User:Ragib|Ragib]]

message: I previously stated above that I don't have any interaction with any other parties to this RFArb. I want to rephrase that as "I didn't have any interaction with any other parties at the time of making the statement". It seems like User:Street Scholar and User:Hkelkar were having an argument over an article, and as part of the talk page verbal bout, User:Street Scholar made an extremely derogatory comment  here against Bengali people. Frankly, I don't have any comment on whatever problem these two users were having, but making such derogatory comments on an ethnic group is very objectionable, and against WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and other wikipedia policies. I was informed of the comment by Hkelkar. Usually, I do not want to get involved in other people's disputes, but such a nasty racially motivated comment amounts to hate speech, and should not be allowed in Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that the parties involved will get over their meaningless quarrels and refrain from going into racial, ethnic, or religion motivated comments. Such behavior is definitely harmful for the project.
I have requested User:Street Scholar to refrain from making such ethnic/racial comments, and will put a note on WP:AN/I. I would like the arbcomm to take a note of this when making decisions. That said, I do not have any comment on the other issues in the RFArb. Thanks. --Ragib 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on [[User:Street Scholar]] by [[User:Ragib|Ragib]]

message: My comment has to do only with User:Bakasuprman.  I neither have enough knowledge nor an opinion about the dispute in question though.
I dont exactly remember when we crossed paths for the first time.  But roughly, I reckon it was around two or three months ago when the User:Mahawiki & User:Arya Rajya Maharashtra vs "Kannada editors" wars were raging on the Belgaum and other related pages.  Bakasuprman entered the scene somehow and ended up merely fueling the fire(though he has claimed just the opposite in some places).  
It was immediately clear that he neither had any knowledge of nor any real stance or even interest in the content issues that were being debated but merely entered the scene, took sides and started rendering moral and mercenary support to Users Mahawiki and Arya Rajya Maharashtra whose incivility knew no bounds.  User:Arya Rajya Maharashtra was later caught using abusive socks and blocked while Mahawiki in an extraordinarily hilarious and disruptive display of theatrics seemingly has bid goodbye to Wiki.
Baka seems to have taken all this to heart and seems to be pursuing me with renewed vigor since then.  Couple of weeks ago, he had a God send when a frivolous checkuser he had filed on me and other users concluded(to everyone's surprise including Baka's I am sure) that I was indeed a puppetmaster and that User:Gnanapiti was my puppet. This was contested by both of us and upon further investigation by Admins Blnguyen and Admin Dmcdevit we were cleared of the charges.  But as I would expect of him, Baka had already started making use of the erroneous results everywhere including on this arbitration which isnt even connected to my case by.  This very fact should be seen as a bad faith attempt to use half truths to influence the arbiters here. 
As to why he is antagonistic towards me I can only speculate.  Couple of months ago, the campaign by some Indian users to extract an apology(or more??) out of Admin dab for some comment he had made in 2005 caught my eye.    Seeing the amount of flak that dab(who I hadnt even heard of until then) was receiving and seeing the kind of defacement of his user page, I was moved to make this comment.
This probably raised the hackles of many extreme pro-India, pro-Hindu users like Baka and my own user page got vandalised many times in the days that followed.  Shortly after that, Baka entered the scene of my content disputes with the users named above.  Few days into our interactions, he tried to play the Hindutva card and win me over but I summarily rejected his offer which he later, rather funnily dubbed as his 'olive branch to me'.  This probably ticked him off even more and ever since then he has been systematically targeting me, trying to influence admins against me and being incivil against me in the garb of commenting on my messages and not me.  Also it is quite apparent to anyone that his opposition of my views on the Jana Gana Mana, Vande Mataram, Saare Jahan Se Achcha etc., pages is motivated more by a desire to oppose me for the sake of opposing and his own silly 'nationalistic' compulsions rather than a genuine view that he has on the dispute.  
It can also be seen in the way he voted on the question of moving pages of some Karnataka cities to their new names.  If you observe, he says he supports all moves except that of Belgaum.  He opposes the Belgaum move on the grounds that one of the 2 or 3 million users on Wikipedia allegedly 3rr gamed on one of the million plus articles on en.wiki!!  
This clearly demonstrates that his views on anything are driven merely by his own personal compulsions and relations with other users than an objective view of the issue in question.
All in all i can say with confidence that this user is an extremely incivil and disruptive user and needs to be shown his place.  Any user who is even remotely opposed to his views gets branded as anti-India, anti-Hindu etc., and hounded and called names either by him or his band of brothers.  Its high time the admins stopped this nonsense by force. Sarvagnya 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on [[User:Bakasuprman]] by [[User:Sarvagnya]]

message: There's so much wrong with the user above, its impossible to even know where to start. I'll just go paragraph by paragraph and provide my "factual response to the hate attack on Bakasuprman".Bakaman Bakatalk 04:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: response

message: Hello everyone. I have been requested to make a statement on Bakasuprman and I do so gladly. I was involved with him on the Saare Jahan Se Achcha song article. Before I arrived to the talk page, many users were debating over the usefulness of the Hindi script on the article. I saw the argument and presented my view based on references that I provided. After I gave the comment, it seemed to me (and several others) that the majority of the users who were involved in the discussion decided it was best to keep both Hindi (Devanagari) and Urdu (Perso-Arabic) scripts in the article. Bakasuprman was intrumental in the discussion as he provided many references to buttress our argument. We also know that the gentleman is also not trying to show favoritism for Hindi because it is not his native language- Bakasuprman speaks the Tamil language. The opinion he conveyed was based on fact: that Hindi is the official language of the Union Government of India and should therefore be placed on the article as the article dealt with a national song (see Official Language—Constitutional/Statutory Provisions). Bakasuprman has also acted in a genial manner towards me, thanking me for my research. I feel that Bakasuprman is an industrious editor and makes beneficial contributions to Wikipedia. As a result, I and many other Wikipedians appreciate his efforts. Thanks for your time. Sincerely and with kind regards, AnupamTalk 06:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on Bakasuprman by [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]

message: My comment here is strictly limited to User:Bakasuprman. I do not wish to comment on any other parties or issues involved here.
I've come across Bakasuprman on a regular basis, and find him to be industrious and productive editor. As is evident by User:Bakasuprman/Awards (and my experience with him), Bakasuprman has made many beneficial contributions to Wikipedia.
I undestand that he has indulged in revert wars sometimes, and few of his past pro-Hindutva edits did not confirm to WP:NPOV. I also agree that dab and Dmcdevit were right in reprimanding him. But I very strongly disagree with dab when he says: "Bakasuprman who may not be an actual sock (although this edit suggests otherwise), but who is certainly part of the 'continuum' and who with his raving paranoia of "anti-Hindu cabals" certainly isn't helping the project".
Bakasuprman is certainly not a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of either User:Shiva's Trident or User:Hkelkar. He cannot be categorized as a Hindutva POV-pusher or anti-Muslim editor. In my opinion, a lot of bad blood against him comes from his stand at Talk:Saare Jahan Se Achcha, edit war between pro-Maharashtra and pro-Kannada editors and his support/opposition to some of the  users involved in this RFArb. He might have violated WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc. sometimes, but most of these were provoked by other users.
Bakasuprman has made attempts to improve his relationship with others users, and to resolve disputes in a constructive manner. Overall, my opinion of Bakasuprman is favorable.  utcursch | talk 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on Bakasuprman by [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]]

message: I would like to submit my comments and they are  strictly restricted to User:Bakasuprman. I do not wish to comment on any other parties or issues involved here as I am least inclined to meddle in this mess. I generally agree with the views of utcursch stated above.
However, I would particularly like to add that I have generally found User:Bakasuprman actively protecting the integrity of the Project despite direct and indirect provocative edits by some elements among us. However, I have observed a steady improvement in his behaviour and perhaps he has learnt  (like me) that one should get reconciled to the position of reducing activity (till the storm blows over) like edits, contributions, and real value addition to the Project when faced with determined disruptive elements harming the integrity of the Project! This is really sad and may sound bizarre, but it is perhaps a sad reality, which many may not accept so openly. --Bhadani 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on Bakasuprman by [[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]]

message: Actually, I was editing the Cheema article and Hkelkar and he started littering the topic with  and  tags you can see the talk this section particular also see this section he also never responded here after I proved the books. He also accused me of Personal attacks I asked him to provide evidence but he never did see here thanks. P.S he also claims he went to the university of Texas I have proof for this claim I can provide it at the request of the admins. --StreetScholar 15:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point of fact, the article was disputed material largely because it contained dubious sources (in fact, falsified sources by Street Scholar).I found several instances of misrepresented citations on his partI pointed this out and immediately received a barrage of attacks from Street Scholar. He has a pattern of ethnic baiting of users he disagrees with.Eventually, third party mediation was evoked and the mediator agreed with my assertion. Street Scholar merely ignored him and continued with his fake sources.In addition, the user has a disturbing block log of sexist attacks on lady wikipedians. He got blocked for making numerous mysoginistic statements to a lady admin.He was warned numerous times by numerous users . He eventually got blocked  but persisted in making sexist statements on his talk page , then got his block extended, then insisted that his religious beliefs mandated disdain towards women . The admin who blocked him gave him a good reprimand for such unacceptable behavior  and was also admonished by several other users . He persists in POV pushing and was even contacted by other users to that effect Hkelkar 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job with that, am pretty new and a casual editor in wiki so I didn't know how to get the diff, mine and your argument is on a book, and the book is called: "History of the Jats by Ram Sarup Joon" you say this book doesn't exist, but I can prove you wrong the book is right here: Harvard University Library) so accusations about that you have made against me are wrong about misrepresenting sources. 
The next issue is you said about sexism, yes I did make those comments I don't deny them I did make misogynistic comments to a female admin I what can I say I had a bad-day. Anyway I was banned for that. You know what they say Hkelkar? "don't do the crime if you can do the time" anyway this is about you, take it like a real man and just admit to the accusations made against you, don't be dishonorable. --StreetScholar 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonetheless, it has been proved that you are  liar before so your citations are suspect. I will, of course, check them (I have friends in harvard).Hkelkar 20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit rich coming from a sockpuppeteer. BhaiSaab talk 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As a wise man named TerryJ-Ho said, repeating the same nonsense many times does not make it the truth.Hkelkar 07:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hkelkar, uses ethnic slurs this is reason enough to believe he is a racist see diff So Hkelkar, I actually challenge you, I will give you £100 pounds through pay-pal if you can prove I have miss-cited anything in the Cheema article, don't give me this "I have friends in Harvard" I went to one of the most prestigious colleges in the UK (Imperial College London) my sources are authentic. At one-time you said the book didn't even exist so you have no credibility my friend I think you should stick to editing the Hindu articles and embellishing on the truth a little as racists generally do. Wait a second, didn't you say you were a Indian Jew to me one time? so the ethnic slurs toward the Arabs would make sense. --StreetScholar 10:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That post of mine was sarcastic and not serious (which is why I striked it out to avoid unpleasantness and apologized). This post of yours is a PA and will be reported as such.Hkelkar 11:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sadly I apologized to aksi_great, making your argument fizzle out. Anyway see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya, showing that I had a real problems to deal with. Anyway users:Anupam, Bharatveer, and Mahawiki reverted the page (none of whom speak the same language as me) to revert vandalism of the Hindi section. Consensus on Talk:Saare Jahan Se Achcha page supported keeping both Nastaliq and Nagari version. I dont claim nothing. I am south Indian. I find this to be an attack on me, akin to users arguing over Hkelkar's Jewishness. Amazing argument: "he claims to be South Indian". I also "claim" to be a Hindu, and "claim" to be Indian. I must therefore be lying about that. I was kidding to Durova, any user can see that. It was not irrelevant to the SaareJahan debate, because you and Sarvagnya were fighting Maha and arya instead of answering arguments made by [[user|Anupam}} and . I also know perfectly well that this comment was solicited by Sarvagnya only to attack me to further personal feuds.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If my edits were reverted that means nothing. I have reliable sources to back 3500BCE . Infact, I have never seen KNM on any page of Ancient Indian History, proving that the allegations are unsubstantiated, and selectively quoted to propagate misinformation and malignment.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wanna make a few comments 

message: These comments are only about User:Bakasuprman, with whom I have interacted in last few weeks on the discussion pages of several Indian related talk pages. 
* Extreme pro-Hindu, pro-Indian POV pushing. Some examples where he has pushed his POV without defending them with the support of a citation or discussion on talk pages: removal of an important category in Nathuram Godse article, pushing Indus valley civilization back by 200 years!!. Not to mention, his edits were reverted back by other editors in the very next edits, and he doesn't try to defend them. This clearly indicates, he has no valid support or citation for such POV pushing, but probably keeps trying assuming nobody notices or questions his edits. 
* 3RR Gaming. Here he invities his comrades to come in and perform reverts when he realises that he's too close to 3RR violation. Given that he already knew the the other user's viewpoint, this is a clear violation of many Wiki policies, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:Civil included.
* Support based on prejudicies instead of facts. In a discussion on Talk:Saare_Jahan_Se_Achcha page, this user apparently tried deviating the topic bringing in irrelevant things to that discussion such as Kannada-Marathi debates, Belgaum article, Kannada koota etc, in this edit. It included incivil and attacking sentences such as "Once again, a splurge of useless rants". I requested him to avoid such things in healthy discussions, in this edit. In turn, he came to my talk page with this "Note"! In this "Note", he talks about South indians supporting each other. He claims he is a south indian and would support other south indians. Which again shows, he doesnt bother much about who is right, who is wrong, which is neutral, which is supported with citations, but he is ready to support based on prejudicies such as "Indians", "South indians", "Hindus" etc. 
* Accusation of "Back stabbing" on an Admin. An admin, whose action doesn't match with this user's POV, will be considered as a back-stabber overnight, by this user. User:Aksi_great had blocked User:Hkelkar and it is like this, User:Bakasuprman attacks the admin for "back stabbing many Indian users". I will leave it upto other editors/admins to decide if this is a personal attack or just uncivil, but the user's attitude is there for everyone to see. He seems to think that *Indian admins* are just there to do his bidding and guard his POV. Also tries to pass off his own POV as that of several other users.
* THIS ought to be the most ridiculous thing on wiki I've seen so far. Some user had hauled User:Bakasuprman to WP:PAIN and Admin User:Durova was looking into the matter. This user, who calls himself an "established editor" comes along and shamelessly reminds the admin that he had voted in support for that admin in his/her RFA, with an implicit "cut me some slack!". This is not only a very uncivil attempt to try and influence the admin but very clearly also an attempt to undermine the system which he probably takes for a joke.
Thank you - KNM  Talk 04:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly I apologized to aksi_great, making your argument fizzle out. Anyway see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya, showing that I had a real problems to deal with. Anyway users:Anupam, Bharatveer, and Mahawiki reverted the page (none of whom speak the same language as me) to revert vandalism of the Hindi section. Consensus on Talk:Saare Jahan Se Achcha page supported keeping both Nastaliq and Nagari version. I dont claim nothing. I am south Indian. I find this to be an attack on me, akin to users arguing over Hkelkar's Jewishness. Amazing argument: "he claims to be South Indian". I also "claim" to be a Hindu, and "claim" to be Indian. I must therefore be lying about that. I was kidding to Durova, any user can see that. It was not irrelevant to the SaareJahan debate, because you and Sarvagnya were fighting Maha and arya instead of answering arguments made by [[user|Anupam}} and . I also know perfectly well that this comment was solicited by Sarvagnya only to attack me to further personal feuds.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If my edits were reverted that means nothing. I have reliable sources to back 3500BCE . Infact, I have never seen KNM on any page of Ancient Indian History, proving that the allegations are unsubstantiated, and selectively quoted to propagate misinformation and malignment.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on [[User:Bakasuprman]] by [[User:KNM|KNM]]

message: I interacted with this user only on Talk:Saare Jahan Se Achcha, meaning the rest of the stuff posted above is from his (at the behest of Sarvagnya)personal hatred and quote mining.
:Sadly I apologized to aksi_great, making your argument fizzle out. Anyway see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya, showing that I had a real problems to deal with. Anyway users:Anupam, Bharatveer, and Mahawiki reverted the page (none of whom speak the same language as me) to revert vandalism of the Hindi section. Consensus on Talk:Saare Jahan Se Achcha page supported keeping both Nastaliq and Nagari version. I dont claim nothing. I am south Indian. I find this to be an attack on me, akin to users arguing over Hkelkar's Jewishness. Amazing argument: "he claims to be South Indian". I also "claim" to be a Hindu, and "claim" to be Indian. I must therefore be lying about that. I was kidding to Durova, any user can see that. It was not irrelevant to the SaareJahan debate, because you and Sarvagnya were fighting Maha and arya instead of answering arguments made by [[user|Anupam}} and . I also know perfectly well that this comment was solicited by Sarvagnya only to attack me to further personal feuds.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If my edits were reverted that means nothing. I have reliable sources to back 3500BCE . Infact, I have never seen KNM on any page of Ancient Indian History, proving that the allegations are unsubstantiated, and selectively quoted to propagate misinformation and malignment.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Spurious Accusations

message: These comments are only about User:TerryJ-Ho, with whom I have never had interactions except once recently in admin User:Dmcdevit's talk page.
He had apparently made a politically charged statement ("The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction") about Hindu religion. User:Swadhyayee had then questioned it in that page itself, for which TerryJ-Ho commented, but did not answer with citations to support his statement.
It was then, I entered in and requested him to provide  the citations to support his statement, in this edit.
For which TerryJ-Ho has not responded either in that page, or in my talk page. 
Thank you! - KNM  Talk 04:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on [[User:TerryJ-Ho]] by [[User:KNM|KNM]]

message: Under "enforcement" it currently reads: 
"2)  editing under any name or anonymous ip is banned from Wikipedia for one year."
Am I correct in thinking that this is intended to say "editing under any other name"? (As in, any name aside from User:Hkelkar?) If not, how is that different than the full 1 year ban placed on the other 2 parties? --tjstrf talk 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because he has a history of suspected sockpuppet use, Fred felt it necessary to spell this out.  There's no real difference in the ban. Thatcher131 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. OK then, my mistake. I interpeted the specificness as indicating it was supposed to be something special, rather than your normal "You cannot edit. Anything. Period." type of ban. --tjstrf talk 01:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo(?) changing meaning of enforcement sentence.