Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Do feel free to present full and comprehensive evidence, here or on the workshop page. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Before I post my evidence, I would like to point out how I ALWAYS tried to discuss disputes with Indian editors even though the so called disputes were regarding Indian nationalist propaganda and false claims on Pakistan based articles.
All my blocks by Ramas Arrow were caused by content posted on Talk Pages. I never cursed, flamed, or insulted anyone. Simply questioned their claims with logical arguments and facts, and I got treated very unfairly by Rama.
I was insulted by Indian users, and I was accused of really hurtful things by this admin also. JFD points out one Indian user banned by Ramas Arrow, this doesnt explain all the other Indian nationalists Rama is ignoring and helping, and his own POV pushing. Please consider this. Wikipedia is being used as a political tool by these Indian nationalists in order to give a very negative impression of Pakistan and Pakistanis aswell as insulting Pakistanis, in wikipedia Articles.

Also, one piece of so called evidence being used against me is particularly false. Some Indian users seem to be blaming me for "Genocide Denial". But it seems one of the users got emotional and used this term. The rest of the Indian users didnt bother reading up on what happened, and used the insult without thinking.
I never mentioned any Genocide, let alone Deny one. My exact statement was:

• "Nobody was forced out. People left Pakistan just like they left India." [2].

And by the use of some twisted Logic, my statement got converted into a Genocide Denial. Despite several attempts to clear this up [3], the term was used again and again as a tool to justify ignoring my arguments [4].

Reply to Ramas Allegations of Sock Puppetry.
I have never pretended to be someone else, or used any other account than Unre4L. Yes, once, I got worked up and simply tried to direct Rama's Arrows attention towards my talk page because of his accusations of me being an Anti Semite (Rama: You dont know me in person and you will never find out how hurtful these accusations were, I hope you will find out one day however). I sincerely regret not clarifying that I was Unre4L, I wasnt thinking clearly.
I have been careless with not logging in when posting a few times, but Please check the dates aswell. Half the posts I made with the other IP were BEFORE I even registered an account here (or started using it). However, I have NEVER pretended to be another person when posting on Wikipedia. This allegation has not been used against me before, and out of desperation, I am being accused for sock puppetry.

Evidence against Rama's Arrow

Abusing Admin privileges by Harassing Users opposed to Indian Nationalists

Dodged a case opened up by me and Nadirali against him, by starting this arbcom, and effectively becoming the "victim"

• Our case against Rama's Arrow [5]
  

Blocked me (without warning) using misleading evidence, by inserting his own titles to my extremely moderate replies

• Extremely Misleading Evidence [6]
  
• My 1 week Block [7]
  

Blocked me for questioning Indian POV, where the warning and block was handed out while I was offline, so basically, No warning. This block was handed out while ignoring insults, and flame wars started by Indian users.

• My 1 week block caused by this question [8]
  
• My 1 week block [9]
  
• Ignored insults like these from Indian users when banning me [10] [11]
  

Falsely accusing me of Anti Semitism and having an "agenda", after blocking me so I couldnt defend myself. And by handing out a strict "Block Evasion" block of 2 weeks, when I did defend myself against his extremely hurtful accusations (didnt login).

• Accusations of Anti Semitism, and having an Agenda, after my block [12]
  
• Block Evasion handed out, without even commenting on my defense against his accusations [13]
  

Blocking other non Indian users who question Indian POV [14]

Lets another Indian user walk away with extreme insults, by simply telling him to calm down.

• Insults this User posted [15] [16]
  
• A simple warning by Rama [17]
  

Edit warring himself to push his own POV [18] [19]

Abusing Admin privileges by helping Indian Nationalists

Rama's Arrow's other offences include ignoring Indian nationalists offences, where he allows certain Indian users to edit war, Pov Push, insult other users, use Wikipedia for their own agendas, while penalising non-Indian users who dare to question the actions of these Indian nationalist. The following shows evidence of how these Indian nationalists have had their way on Wikipedia while committing big block worthy offences.

Falsely accuses me of causing "disruption", when certain Indian users vandalised a debate I started

• My suggestions, and the disruption caused by Indian users [20] [21]
  

Falsely accuses me of "PoV Pushing" when I question obvious Indian PoV, Backed up with Evidence, yet they are ignored.

• Evidence of Indian PoV pushing which I questioned, including, Indianising articles, removing references which would refer to Pakistan, editing Pakistan based terms, reverting sourced facts with unsourced figures which fit their PoV etc. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
  

• More Unsourced Indian PoV pushing, to create a Positive image of India by removing references of Indian massacres and extremism, adding wide exaggerated coverage of Hindu deaths and Muslim violence, generally rephrasing articles to fit POV and remove references to Pakistan, and vandalising other peoples work by changing individual terms to fit their own PoV etc... [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

Generally ignoring any offences by Indian users, while nitpicking on Pakistani users

• Insults and Harsh replies from Indian users ignored by Rama (which go unpunished) [47] [48] ( [49] edit summary), [50] [51]
  
• Extreme comments by Indian users which have gone unpunished. [52] [53] ( [54] edit summary),
  

Evidence of Indian users hijacking articles, where they refuse to let anyone else edit, or even question the obvious Indian POV.

• Removal of other users "Disputed tags" before a debate is even started. [55] [56] [57]
  
• Indian Users encouraging other people to ignore arguments and revert carelessly [58]

Indian Nationalists

The following users are being referred to: User:AMbroodEY, User:Nobleeagle, User:Bakasuprman, User:Dangerous-Boy, User:Freedom skies and User:Deeptrivia .
Please note, these users are the ones I am referring to in the above section of "Abusing Admin privileges by helping Indian Nationalists". Their PoV pushing, Insults, and vandalisms go unnoticed, and anyone questioning them can expect extremely unfair treatment by Rama's Arrow.

Note, The following evidence is the same as the one provided above, however it is categorised by the names of the offenders. I have provided just one (unless necessary) diff for each article they have been vandalising. A lot more evidence from each article can be provided, but by browsing through their contributions, you will notice an exceptionally large numbers of unexplained, unsourced reverts. And they are reverting edits of everything which goes against their PoV, not just edits from Pakistani users.

User:AMbroodEY

• Insults [59] [60] ( [61] edit summary) [62]
• PoV Pushing and Vandalism [63] [64] [65]

User:Nobleeagle

• Insults [66]
• PoV Pushing and Vandalism [67] [68] [69] [70]

User:Bakasuprman

• Insults [71] ( [72] edit summary)
• PoV Pushing and Vandalism [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] aswell as the ones posted here [84]

User:Dangerous-Boy

• Insults [85] [86]
• PoV Pushing and Vandalism [87] [88] ( [89] including false edit summary) [90]

User:Freedom skies

• False insulting accusations [91]
• PoV Pushing and Vandalism [92] [93]

User:Deeptrivia

• PoV Pushing and Vandalism [94] [95] [96]

Evidence linking Indian Nationalists to Extremist sites

Certain Indian Nationalists on Wikipedia are strongly linked to other hindu extremist forums, like Hindu Unity forums. - A racist forum spreading lies and hate towards Islam. The site is littered with Racist articles, hate messages and comments. Soon after I made fellow Wikipedians aware of Pakistani ancient history, I discovered this message: [97] .
This must have been a few day after I started posting, so obviously certain users are "regulars" at Wiki, however it doesnt end here.

Another thread at "Indian Defence forum" was brought to my attention. "Wikipedia and Pakistani Historiography/historical revisionism". This lengthy 3 page "debate" was started by a Wikipedian. [98]
This user actively tried to recruit Indians from the forum to engage in Edit wars with non Indians.
The user gets the Indian members riled up by referring to an "Anti Hindu lobby" on Wikipedia, and they start ridiculing Pakistani members and Pakistanis in general.
The user throws around a few false allegations before inviting people to Wikipedia, "to fight Pakistanis". Some Comments of this user includes:

• "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." [99]
• To get people started, here are some elementary points for editing wikipedia

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_administrator_attention hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats" [100]

This user obviously knows a lot about Wiki Policies, and also knows a lot about Me, and the other Pakistani/Bengali members on Wikipedia. The user knows what he is doing, and even warns them about not mentioning this on Wikipedia.

Although only Rama's Arrow has been mentioned in invloved parties, however, I will provide evidence against other users too who have been actively Indianizing Islam and particularly Pakistan related articles.

Evidence against Rama's Arrow

List of evidence against Rama's Arrow can be extremely long, therefore, I will list most notable ones only.

In addition to these, there are countless other examples where he has supported Indian editors despite their incivil behaviour and at times he has ignored policy violations from Indian editors while imposing them on Pakistanis. As I observed his behaviour in my initial days at Wikipedia and noted extremely religious nature of his username; I decided to avoid him at all costs. No offence intended, I had assumed that he was a teenager going through typical emotional rush; and I had a belief in Admins of wikipedia that they would keep a check on him. It was a serious shock for me when I discovered that he was an admin, and he had virtually no one to keep a check on his activities at Wikipedia. I do not think a person with such tendencies of edit-warring, POV pushing and obvious bias should be an admin.

From the evidence presented by Rama's Arrow some traits of his mentality are very clear. It is obvious that he thinks that:

• Honestly stating one's motives and intentions without any deceptive language is a crime.
• Discussing with strong logic against Indianisation is a crime.
• Pointing out negative traits in certain edits is a crime.
• Efforts to protect integrity of NPOV information are crimes.
• Removing irrelevant scripts from different articles is a crime if those irrelevant scripts happen to be from India.
• Crticising nationalistic edits is a crime.
• Confronting disruptive Indian editors is a crime.
• A person can be punished multiple times under same accusations.

The evidence presented by Szhaider against user:Anupam is entirely reflective of his mentality - his notion that script transliterations are a mode to "Indianize" articles. he says. Since when Devangari became relevant to Pakistan related articles? In this statement, is he not claiming that user:Anupam's edits were not nationalistic? I criticised Rama's Arrow on the lines of age, race and religion because I belived and still believe that all of these three factors are strongly affecting his judgement, decisions and activities.

For Rama's information there have been many examples where I removed Urdu scripts too because I believed they were irrelevant.

Rama's Arrow is trying to use our honest discussions against us by twisting their interpretations. This is typical of him. One such balatant example is this where he twisted one user's words from another web site and created an outrageous anti-semitic theory. It is obvious he is trying to use every bit of our edits by simply questiong our motives no matter how legitimate our edits are. It is an obvious trait of his personality that if someone disagrees with Indian editors in general, and with him specially, he thinks of it as disruption (and incivility) which is obvius from the evidence he has provided and the list of editors which he claims we have confronted.

Moreover, the long list of violated policies that he has presented; he too violated all of those policies at different occasions and multiple policies at one time in some cases. See all the evidence against him presented by me and others.

Evidence against Anupam

Although, this user has not been included in involved parties, however, he has been involved in Indianizing and meatpuppetry of Pakistan and Islam related articles.

A macroscopic look on the pattern of these edits clearly builds a picture where a user is overly Indianizing and trying to somehow link every Pakistan related topic to Republic of India; creating an environment where Republic of India seems like a Parental figure for neibours. He always insists on the use of the words "Hindustani" and "Hindi-Urdu" instead of "Urdu". He always insists on putting Indian scripts in Pakistan related and Islam related articles with no solid reason. It is notable that I have successfully persuaded this person many times agaisnt his actions for many articles, however, he repeats the same actions in new articles which is becoming extremely furstrating. He has extensively edited Urdu, Hindi, Hindustani, Urdu grammar etc. to make them more favourable to India and Indian culture and has tried every tool to prove the non-existance or merely conditional existance of Urdu by heavily refering to Urdu as "Hindi", "Hindi-Urdu" and "Hindustani". He is insists on his dubious claims that Urdu and Hindi are two names of the same language; ignoring the fact because of creation of Pakistan, Urdu and Hindi have become excessively different and at literary level, speaker of either language cannot understand the others. (I read Urdu language books extensively. My peronal experience with Urdu language books of Indian writers has been really bad as I found that their Urdu extremely different from that of Pakistan.) He is trying to prove his (unsaid) claims Indian dominance in the region extending to as far as to Afghanistan and Iran. He has created same article for both Urdu and Hindi grammer and filled it with Devangari script chunks which make it extremely hard and often conusing for an unaware reader. An unaware reader cannot easily understand what's happening with two different scripts and which he/she is exactly reading about. Look at Hindustani; it does not serve any purpose other than trying to prove Indian ownership of Urdu (national language of Pakistan). And how can a non-existant language (Hindustani) can be a national language of any country?

Evidence against Dangerous-Boy

In my beliefe, this user is a stalker, and is guilty of team-tagging, meatpuppetry, edit-warring, POV pushing and has multiple violations of WP:NPA to his credit. He has often openly expressed his Indian nationalistic agenda. Following are some examples of his actions. On November 26, 2006, I used WP:AWB to cleanup all articles under Category:Archaeological sites in Pakistan. Within few hours, Dangerous-Boy tagged the talk pages of all those articles with {{WP India}} tag which included flag of Republic of India; an indirect claim over Pakistani territories for India.

{Violations by Rama's Arrow}

Making inflamitory comments that are personally offensive to Pakistani users of Muslim background,which also gives me the impression of his attitude to people of Muslim heritage.Using the word "Paki" (racial slur) instead of "Pakistani" on Szhaider's talkpage.Indicating that users of Pakistani descent are troublesom.See here.Nothing but a prejiduiced claim. Vandalizing my contributions here. Note:I'd also like to add that RA keeps taking credit for banning puppetmaster User:Hkelkar in an attempt to hide his own bias as an admin.Only about a month ago,RA tag-team edit warred side by side with Rumpelstiltskin223 (confirmed sockpuppet of Hkelkar) against User:Szhaider on the Iqbal article.If the history of that article can be checked going back about a month it will show.After blocking Szhiader for edit warring against him,RA proceeded to edit war against user:Fowler&fowler on the same article.See here.Note:RA accuses anyone that disagrees with him of being a "POV pusher". Blocks another Pakistani user for removing indian POV from articles here. Though another user thinks RA is a "fair",he still agrees RA ignoring violations of Indian users as unjust here.Fowler&fowler,a neutral user with no alligience to either side agrees RA has abused his privelages as administrator here.Blocks me for a week for pointing out that the Indian users are tag-team edit warring on articles and being careful not to break the 3RR. Note:Rama's Arrow is both Indian and Hindu. MinaratDK testifies to the claim of RA's bias and religious nationalism here.All Bakaman got was this, while Szhaider got this.The same thing happened when Ambroody quarelled with Unre4L.While Ambroody got this,Unre4L got this.

When I quarralled with user:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Hkelkar's sockpuppet as confirmed by checkuser) over an article,in which he tried to link Pakistan to international terrorism,I recieved this warning from RA.

I think this should be enough to rebuff RA's claim of being "neutral" simply because he banned Hkelkar.Also if you look at Rumps's blocklog,RA never blocked him from what i can atleast see,despite the fact that he had broken the 3RR on 2 different articles and even after I reported him to WP:ANI where Rama posted as well. Only after I posted on MinaratDKs page with evidence of RA's dishonesty,I was accussed of "interjecting" by RA and recived another week long block.See my block log.The excuse was "edit warring" even though it was much AFTER I edit warred with Rumps and that I did not break the 3RR.

Also take a look at this.The complaint Rumps posted on RA's page about me is not that far apart from the warning I got from RA in time span.RA is simply trying to hide his bias by banning Hkelkar while supporting his sockpuppet against me.Add that to RA and Rumps tag-team edit warring together on Iqbal which i already mentioned.

Here's some more evidence.Bakaman,a close associate of Rama (in regards to their shared POV and nationalistic belifs) warns RA that that user:Szhaider's complaint had some legicimety on his talkpage and also gets a notice of discouragement about blocking other users.

Dabachmann,a neutral admin niether Indian nor Pakistani notices that RA is using his misusing tools in Indian-Pakistani disputes as he stated on RA's talkpage.

deletes an article that I wrote without discussion or even informing me.

He speaks of Indian users feeling a need to "retaliate" on Folwer's talkpage.This is ironnic since he told Unre4L that "wikipedia is not a battleground" and also states in the link provided that he warned Bakaman and Ambroody.This is strange since he gave week long blocks to Unre4L and Szhaider instead.-- Nadirali نادرالی

{Violations by Indian users that RA uses his administrative position to support}

There are far too many Indian users filled with anti-Pakistan sentiment (see here and here for example) that I cannot even count all of them.My problem with them (and RA for supporting them along with his joint hostility towards us) is they are claiming our history in their articles.What's more is they won't allow us to claim our own history for ourselves.Add to that they are using wikipedia as a soapbox to claim our history and spread false propaganda about us. Through tag-team edit warring,they have gained full control of Pakistani articles and won't allow anyone who disagrees with him to keep his/her reverts.The history of these articles going back months shows evidence of tag-team edit warring by Indian users.What's more is these users are bent on Indianizing Pakistani articles,through adding Indian tags,keeping all refferences to Pakistan out,for example from "ancient Pakistan" to "ancient India".If you look at the history of Pakistan articles and history of India articles,they're somewhat identical because Indian users are convinced that Pakistan and its history belongs to them.Here are some articles where they try to keep all reffernces to Pakistan and have taken full control of the articles through tag-team edit warring:

Tag team edit warring on Iqbal by indians http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Muhammad_Iqbal&dir=prev&offset=20070105035217&limit=20&action=history

on history of Pakistan http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_Pakistan&action=history

on Panini http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini&action=history

on Indus valley civilization http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indus_Valley_Civilization&offset=20070104211030&action=history

on Supryam http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Subrahmanyan_Chandrasekhar&action=history

They wont allow Pakistanis to define their own nationalistic belifs.They have crammed the article with indian POV http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pakistani_nationalism&action=history

On Islam in India which is filled with inaccuracies and anti-Islam sentiment http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Islam_in_India&action=history

On the talkpage of Sindhi literature where they were adding the Indian banner http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sindhi_literature&action=history

Note:these "textbook" comments that they repeatidly make are reffering to texbooks used by religious fanatics in Pakistan to recruit followers.They use these "textbook" comments to taunt us on that basis.'

As I said,I cannot even count the number of anti-Pakistan Indian users,but I can name among the most active ones and their acts/violations:

• Deeptrivia:

-Plotting with Bakaman to write a hate article.

- personal attack on Pakistani editors of Muslim faith.(Those same "textbook" remarks which indicate that Pakistani Muslims are Jihaddists).

• Bakaman

-Calls the Pakistani flag "graffidi"

- racist comments against Pakistani Muslims.

-Using offensive words to "describe" fellow editors.

-More racist comments.

-Makes false and incivil accusations against MinaretDK.

-Removes templates I posted on an article to mark Indian POV here.

-Administrator Dbachmann mentions Bakaman's disruptive behaviour.

-Makes freinds with user Kumarnator who called Unre4L a "f***ing wanker" as seen here and called me an "inequivelent animal" on my talkpage. He told Kumernator not to parade being anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan,that quote:there are smarter ways to say it than say it outright.Their full conversation can be seen here. After Kumernator repeatedly attacked me on my talkpage with comments that I deleted,I sought advice from Ragib.His advice was to simply ignor him.When that didn't help,I decided to discourage him from repeatidly attacking me by playing with his words (nothing else seemed to help).When I did that,he reacted by calling me a " stupid Arab" (which did not offend me since Im not Arab).Rather than condenm such a racist comment by him,Bakaman told him to ignor me when it was clearly him who would repeatidly message me with attacks.See bakman's comment here. In general Bakaman gives some strange welcomes to users.He Tricks new users into thinking that there are anti hindu people around,as seen in this welcome , hence encouraging comments like these, showing intolerance for the Pakistani identity

- more insults.

- makes fun of my calls for civility between us.

- tampering with Hkelkar's talkpage to make it look like I posted that comment in Urdu.Now RA is using it as "evidence" against me.

• D-boy

-Making provokitive remarks regarding Urdu.

- personal attacks on MinaretDk in Bengali (or Bangladeshi)

-Attacking Pakhub,therefor insulting a few users on wikipedia who are members of this site as well as personal attacks on me behind my back [322]

More signs of incivility [323]

• Ambroody

- personal attacks on Pakistanis in his edit summary on Pinani.

-not only vandalizing my edits on a guide page,but also removing content that was already there.

-Calls Fowler&fowler my "meatpuppet" and calls me a "blocked POV pusher" on Aski's talkpage.

• AnupamSpr who has recently become as disruptive as the rest of of these users for his edit wars and his recent personal attacks on me on a

talkpage.

-on my my talkpage.

-along with what seems to me as intimidating comments

If you also look at the talkpage of History of india and History of Pakistan,you will see an example of joint Indian harrassment of Pakistani users.

When user:Siddiqui tried to counter this tag-team by bringing awareness to other Pakistani users who proceeded to remove anti-Pakistan propaganda from the articles,Bakaman knew it would be difficult to tag-team edit war against a group as oppossed to one or two users.He then proceeded to WP:ANI where he made this accusation. When we all posted there to point out what was really going on and to counter their accusations,they then tried to recruit meatpuppets to edit war against us as seen in this defence forum thread.-- Nadirali نادرالی

"Evidence" presented by RA and Bakaman

Most of the "evidence" against me are misleading words by RA.Take for example my "attacks" on Muhajirs.I am part muhajir.I criticised the muhajir culture and mentality.Bakaman too.He pulls out "evidence" of some comments.I regretfully made 1 anti-hindu comment as a result of provokation from their anti-Islam and anti-Pakistan remarks,for which I got a 48-hour block for.Another one is when I stated that calling David Duke an anti-semite merely based on his statements is original research and that such political categories accusing people don't belong on an encyclopedia.Now Bakaman is accusing me of being a David Duke supporter.All I request arbitrators to do is read my comments carefully and feel free to ask questions or inquiries.Thankyou.-- Nadirali نادرالی

I believe that the issue is complicated. I will provide evidence here in the coming days. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Rama's Arrow does not show favoritism towards Indian nationalist editors

Rama's Arrow was the admin who indefinitely blocked Hkelkar, one of the most vehement Indian nationalists on Wikipedia.

He has also blocked Freedom skies, another Indian nationalist, for 3RR on the Vedic Sanskrit article, a topic of great interest to Indian nationalists, as well as issued Freedom skies a warning for incivility.

I have no love for Indian nationalist editors, and find the viciousness of their conduct on Wikipedia abhorrent, but Rama's Arrow is not one of them.
JFD 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Both sides of the debate learn different versions of history

I, an Indian, may call Unre4l and co. genocide deniers, Pakistani POV pushers etc. but after a year on Wikipedia I know it's more deep than that. The reason these problems arise is because it seems Pakistani people learn a different version of history to that Indians learn. An example is provided here: on my talk page I added a fact which I treat as common knowledge, that Hindus and Sikhs were cleansed by administration in Punjab, not so much Sindh, while Gandhi went on a fast to ensure that India remained a secular state. When Unreal replied I got the impression he was hurt by these views, which implied that's not the history he knows. Then Gizza replied with the edit summary "...God" and got very emotional about his own family background. Later Ambroodey also commented on apparent genocide denial. That's the root of the problem, if this arbcom can address that then it will be very good. If anyone neutral is documented in other parts of the world then that would be very helpful. — Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Rama's Arrow isn't an unreasonable administrator

My experience with him has been very reasonable. He doesn't take it easy on Hindu nationalists, he indef blocked User:Hkelkar, when BhaiSaab and TerryJHo weren't indef blocked and we should see them again in a year's time. If you look at his block log you will see that he has blocked numerous Indian and Hindu edit warrers and vandals. block log — Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 05:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

As a fairly weak type of evidence. Rama's Arrow, got the article for Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, to FA and endured the pressure of FAC to ensure that someone related to the independence of India and Pakistan would make it to the Main Page. See here to see his conduct. — Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 07:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Through the entire span of their editing history, user:Siddiqui, user:Szhaider, user:Nadirali and user:Unre4L have consistently violated WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:EW, WP:DE, WP:SOCK, WP:NOT, WP:MEAT and WP:AGF (the latter especially towards their Indian colleagues). With the evidence I document below, I intend to prove that:

These editors have attempted to argue that the cause of this dispute is a wider "India vs. Pakistan" content dispute - in doing so, they are trying to deflect the blame and ease the pressure on them to explain their actions. This is not the reason why I asked for arbitration - these editors have edit-warred and disrupted Wikipedia over trivial things such as script transliterations (the presence of Indic script in Pakistan-related articles, to quote Szhaider, are efforts to Indianize), the exclusive placement of {{ WP India}} and {{ WP Pakistan}} tags on a wide range of articles to claim ownership and an adamant refusal to work with the community. Nadirali has also attacked people of Muhajir Urdu descent and edit-warred at the article, so his accusation of "India vs. Pakistan" dispute is purely baseless - he is a disruptive influence across Wikipedia.

I started a discussion at WP:ANI about the website from which they are importing their agenda: [324]

Evidence against Siddiqui

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Siddiqui was conducted approximately 8 months ago; since then, Siddiqui has been blocked numerous times for edit-warring and sockpuppetry.
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui proved that Siddiqui was engaged in sockpuppetry through multiple accounts.
• ANI report on Siddiqui's recent disruptive activities.
• Disruptive behavior on Talk:History of Pakistan: [325]
• "Indian propaganda" vs. Pakistani contributors - this confrontational mentality and meatpuppetry by Siddiqui is exhibited here - [326], [327] and especially by this comment: I am getting Pakistani editors to protect the Pakistan related pages being filled with Indian propaganda. I am also urging my friends to join wikipedia and contribute to Pakistan related pages. The Indians have been team-tagging and reverting any changes to Pakistan related articles. The new Pakistani contributors will soon be able to give balanced view of Pakistan-India disputes. Indian have the right to give thier side of opinion so Pakistanis also have the same right. The Indians have filled Pakistani articles with Indias propaganda. Any change to reflect Pakistan view point is reverted and the Indian contributors team tag to defeat smaller number of Pakistani contributors. Hopefully this will change as I have been trying hard to convince many Pakistanis to join wikipedia and contributue to the articles that interests them. Siddiqui 07:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [328] reply

Evidence against Nadirali

• Nadirali's assertion that Indian hijacking of Pakistani history: If india was a country then why all these distinct cultures in one country?, If indians dont have a history of their own,thats their problem it doesnt give them any right to go around claiming Pakistan's ancient hsitory as their own. "Indians control your knowledge"
• Personal attacks against user:Fowler&fowler: [329]
• WP:OR, WP:SOAP violations: [330], [331]
• Nadirali accuses user:Deeptrivia of anti-Pakistan editing and makes a reference to "Hindu references" - [332]. I'd like to draw the attention of the arbitrators to this remark, which has no meaning save that Nadirali has imported his Hindu-Muslim confrontation mentality into how references are classified. [333]
• Nadirali's response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakhub was to launch into personal attacks against Indian editors and "Jewish voters" - |, [334]
• Nadirali accuses user:Taxman of being a meatpuppet of a wider, Indian lobby - [335]
• Nadirali engaged in link-spamming to promote his website - |, [336]
• Nadirali accused Deeptrivia of "imperialism" and disrespecting Pakistani editors when he inserted the term "Ancient India" - |.
• Nadirali made ideological demands on writing history articles - |
• Nadirali threatened editors who disagreed with his version - |
• Nadirali accuses Indians of ripping off the history of Pakistan - |, [337], [338], [339] and ultimately of "stealing"
• Nadirali's commitment to "prevent the political purpose of diminishing Pakistan's culture" [340]
• Nadirali's disruptive comments on Talk:Muhajir Urdu: [341]. These include racial slurs: Also the article fails to acknoledge the problems these people have caused Pakistan.A good example is the terorrist group known as the MQM... I have no likes of most muhajir people I have encountered.Too religious,too predjuidiced,too anti-Pakistan and a declaration to REPLACE THAT STUPID ARTICLE-NOW!!!!!. He also proceeds to delete comments of other editors and adding vulgar language [342], [343]
• Nadirali proceeds to unilaterally declare the article as totally biased and signs his name on the article [344] and brings his own race/background in [345], [346], [347], [348]
• Nadirali claimed that Wikipedia is a tool/conspiracy to hijack Pakistan's history and generally attacked administrators and other users - [349], [350], [351]
• Nadirali's anti-India rhetoric - |, [352], [353], [354], [355]
• Nadirali's open-attack on a troll exhibits his mentality [356]: Second off that's a Pakistani page,so since your not Pakistani,stay off that page.
• Nadirali removed messages and warnings from other editors - [357], [358], [359] and alters the words of another user to insert anti-India comments [360], [361]
• Nadirali's conception of a war against Pakistanis: [362], [363], [364]
• Personal attacks and threats against user:Ragib - |, |, [365], [366]
• Disruptive behavior - |, [367], [368]
• Nadirali's claims of Indians hijacking Pakistan's history - [369], [370]
• Deletion of another person's comment and declaration of Pakistan Zindabad
• Nadirali's edit wars on Panini - [371], [372], [373], [374], bogus tagging
• Edit-warring on Gun culture in Pakistan: [375], [376]
• Nadirali's personal attack on user:Anupam, which includes a racial slur against Muhajir Urdu: Oh one last thing."educated Muhajirs"(???)I didnt know ALL muhajirs were educated.I wonder then,why 90% of Karachi(a predominantly Muhajir city)lives in poverty. [377]
• Edit-warring, aggressive and derisive comments on Talk:History of Pakistan, Talk:History of India: [378], [379]
• ANI report on Nadirali's block
• Nadirali has awarded barnstars to those sharing his "struggle" to "protect our history" while simultaneously and indirectly attacking other users through what he writes: [380], [381], [382], [383]
• Nadirali's sockpuppetry through 74.98.241.189 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to evade blocks and the WP:3RR rule, launch personal attacks and to edit war on Talk:Sindhi literature, Talk:Panini and Indus Valley Civilization: [384], [385], [386], [387], [388], [389], [390]
• Nadirali distorts content issues in political terms, "India vs. Pakistan:" [391], [392]
• Nadirali's edit-warring, WP:OR/ WP:NEO violations (with Unre4L) on Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar: [393], [394], [395], [396], [397]

Evidence against Unre4L

• Unre4L is repeatedly incivil and attacks those to voted to delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakhub, while throwing random accusations - [398].
• Edit-warring on Panini - [399], [400], [401], [402], [403], [404], [405], [406]
• Unre4L continues his edit-warring on Panini with an edit summary attacking Indian editors - [407], [408].
• Personal attacks and anti-India, disruptive comments including multiple assertions of India(ns) "ripping off" Pakistan's history, akin to Nadirali: [409], [410], [411], [412], [413], [414], [415], [416], [417], [418], [419]
• Unre4L's personal attacks on individual editors: [420], [421], [422], "Just because you havent stolen all of our history doesnt mean you havent stolen most of it.", [423]
• Unre4L's post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian history: Please dont steal Pakistani history, Pakistan's heritage not Indian
• Unre4L's comment on Talk:Gay rights in Pakistan: Some of the sources used in this article are extremely biased, and obvious enough, written by Indians.... at least use half decent sources to back up these claims, and not some Indian conspiracy source. (most Indian newspapers are anti Pakistan, so please use some Western Sources)
• Unre4L's definition of a neutral administrator: Neutral meaning non-Indian
• Link spamming to promote his own website and trying to pass it off as a WP:SOURCE: [424], [425], [426]
• Unre4L's sockpuppetry through 84.43.72.199 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [427], [428], [429]
• When Unre4L claims that he had "forgotten to log-in," he is lying. He attempted to disguise himself[ [430] and he had already been blocked at the point - which means that even if he had logged in, he wouldn't be able to edit at WP:ANI.
• Unre4L's tedentious and disruptive editing on Talk:History of India that stalled the dispute resolution process: [431], [432], [433], [434], [435], [436], [437], [438]
• a rather loaded and insensitive statement regarding 160 million people being "denied their history"
• insulting comments towards deeptrivia and Dangerous-Boy.
• insensitive and totally unnecessary accusations regarding Indian and Pakistani perspectives of history
• More examples: more accusations, [439], [440], [441]
• Other relevant links: a violation that resulted in me blocking him, [442]
• Unre4L's edit-warring, WP:OR/ WP:NEO violations (with Nadirali) on Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar: [443], [444], [445], [446]

Evidence against Szhaider

I feel a need to emphasize that Szhaider is an administrator on the Urdu Wikipedia. While outside of the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee of the English Wikipedia, his conduct is especially unbecoming and more abusive of his responsibilities and status as an Urdu Wikipedia administrator than anything I have been accused of.

• Szhaider has engaged in widespread activities best described as " Urdu-chauvinism." This is inspired by ideology, not reason or a desire to build an encyclopedia - [447], [448]
• Szhaider's Urdu-chauvinism and disruption on Talk:Abrar-ul-Haq: [449], [450], I am a Pakistani nationalist, [451], [452], He belongs to Pakistan and his name in Gurmukhi is outrageously misleading info. In Pakistan, Gurmukhi is considered Hindi, because nobody reads it., [453]
• Szhaider's edit summary: Hindi also is a mutilated form of Urdu
• Similarly, Szhaider has edit-warred on Pajamas on an ideological basis: [454], which was reverted by Fowler&fowler [455], [456]. In this edit summary [457], Szhaider makes an insulting reference to India and Hinduism.
• Szhaider's edit-warring over script transliterations (seeking to remove Indic script) and personal attack in edit summary on Purdah - [458].
• Szhaider's personal attack on Hindus posted on his userpage - [459]. This ANI report on Szhaider's attacks against Hindus was brought up - an email from Szhaider was posted here, in which Szhaider asserts that User:Baloch Victory called my ancestors Hindu and Kaffirs. I was offended by both specially by the term of Kaffirs which is insulting even for non-Muslims. It should be noted that it was one of his very first edits at Wikipedia. The word "Kaffir" is derived from " Kufr" and is the Islamic term for all things non-Muslim. It is used almost exclusively in a negative sense and has historically been used as an insult to non-Muslims and non-Islamic things. That Szhaider would take offense and be upset for days at being associated with Hindus, Kaffirs - non-Muslims in general - makes him guilty of religious/racial intolerance. He posts an insulting comment on his userpage to advertise to the world that he regards being referred to as a Hindu as an insult and wants it to be clear that he is of Arab descent. All this is in wake of an obviously trollish comment from user:Baloch Victory, to which Szhaider would have been wise to simply to warn him and alert an administrator about this user's conduct. A striking feature is that both user:Baloch Victory and Szhaider interpreted "Hindu" and "Kaffir" as insults - Baloch Victory with an intention of using "Hindu" and "Kaffir" as an insult, while Szhaider feels he and his ancestors are being insulted if described as "Hindus" or "Kaffirs."
• In response to my block, Szhaider attacks me on the lines of age, race and religion: [460], [461], [462], [463].
• Szhaider's conspiracy theories: [464]
• All of Szhaider's unblock requests were filled with abusive language and attacks and summarily rejected by other administrators - [465].
• Szhaider's thinking on "the political purpose of diminishing Pakistan's culture" [466]
• Szhaider's personal attacks on user:Ganeshk: [467], [468]
• The evidence presented by Szhaider against user:Anupam is entirely reflective of his mentality - his notion that script transliterations are a mode to "Indianize" articles.

Personal conduct

Although fully expected (the only logical line of defense from Nadirali, Unre4L and Szhaider's point of view), I refute and denounce the charges of being a biased editor/administrator with every fiber of my being. As any other human being, I have many different opinions and convictions, but I have always striven to never let them interfere in my conduct as an editor and administrator.

• I had foreseen this exact situation arising from content disputes over nationality in articles related to Indian and Pakistani history and individuals. To prevent such an eventuality, I worked with Spasage to start a proper discussion on the content issues, which can be viewed at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India disambiguation discussion - a large number of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi editors sought to resolve the question in a dignified manner. As a result, the India (disambiguation) page was sought as a credible solution. While nothing official and not the end of the discussion, it was a well-intentioned and honorable effort on part of the editors who participated. For my efforts, I was awarded a barnstar by Spasage, whose integrity and open-mindedness I strongly admire. My actions over the articles Iqbal and Jinnah were in defense of this consensus - Szhaider and Nadirali did not seek any form of organized dispute resolution or honorable discussion to resolve the issue. On the contrary, their arrogant edit-warring violated the consensus and disrespected the community's effort to work together. Unre4L's participation were marked by a disruptive obstinacy and incivil tedentious behavior. I have raised the articles Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Muhammad Iqbal to the caliber of featured articles, which must represent WP:NPOV. For my work on the Jinnah article, I was awarded a barnstar by Siddiqui.

• Szhaider's block I admit that blocking Szhaider despite being involved in a dispute with him on Iqbal was a breach of an administrator's code of conduct - I stated my desire to observe this rule [469]. However, I soon reconsidered my views because Szhaider was causing disruption and violating policies on multiple articles and with several editors - I was not involved in these cases. I firmly believe that the circumstances justified my action - I would not have blocked him save for the multiple and persistent violations that were disrupting Wikipedia. I have full faith in my judgment and discretion and I was obligated to act as an administrator. The 1-week block was mandated owing to his (1) 3RR violation on Iqbal, (2) personal attacks on Hindus on his userpage [470] (3) persistent incivility to other editors [471] and (4) disruptive edit-summaries. None of the editors in question were denied the option of e-mailing other administrators or simply requesting to be unblocked. As a matter of fact, the userpages of Szhaider and Nadirali had to be protected to prevent abuse of unblock requests - [472], [473]. I even posted the entire case for the blocks on WP:ANI, opening myself to any possible criticism - [474], [475].

• The accusation that I have abused the blocking button is pure nonsense. Ever since I got the tools, I have always been open to any criticism and repeatedly reiterated that any/all issues are best resolved without blocking: [476], [477], [478], [479], [480]

Thank you for your attention. Rama's arrow 15:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Mistake

I was mistaken about the urdu note on banned user Hkelkar talkpage. [481]. I had done a bit of WP:OR I guess, and thought that nadirali posted it, because the urdu note was at the bottom of the page and nadirali was the last poster (I have had hkelkar's page watchlisted for a longtime). When it was pointed out to me that it was infact MirzaGhalib ( talk · contribs), I promptly changed it, though I am perplexed to why nadirali thinks I made it look like he made the note. Unless I knew his password I cannot make anything look like he made it. If he was being remotely reasonable, he would have quietly changed it himself. Baka man 06:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Nadirali

Bigotry

As one can see from this diff, nadirali has the clear intent of insulting Hindus with his nonsense about

[482]

This is an example of a common tactic in Pakistan used to insult users of other religions or against oppressed minorities. See page Krishan Bheel for an example of an inspiration for such outlandish behavior. Then he displays some anti-Semitic behavior, alleging that the anti-Semitic category is bogus and that noted anti-semitic David Duke [isnt http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Category_talk:Anti-Semitic_people&diff=prev&oldid=97245949] (though sources alluding to this abound). Arguing that labeling people based on sources is not neutral, I'm pretty sure Hitler didnt call himself anti-semitic either by nadirali's "logic". He calls a "countries I consider a threat to world peace" box on a userpage to be free speech, violating WP:NOT in the process. Nevertheless India just happened to be one of those.

Spamming

The user never ceases to spam a page whenever he gets a chance. He adds links to blogs on a talk page [483]. With user taxman he spams to an extremist website [484] the same with unre4L. Tries to reel in User:Ragib to pakhub. Asks szhaider to continue the spam crusade.

Miscellaneous Violations

Seems to be completely ignorant of WP:OWN. (You take your history and we'll take ours, anyone?) [485]

Bogus Accusations and attacks

Here we see his convo with user:Taxman. racist assumptions are already present, one does not need to be from the Indian subcontinent to know about India. Later he accuses taxman of being part of a fictitious ultra[indian-imperialist lobby]. Accuses me of having an army of meatpuppets. Bogus allegations of personal attacks. False allegations of tag-team banning. He accuses Chabuk ( talk · contribs) of being anti-Pakistani. Nadirali also accused Hkelkar ( talk · contribs) of calling other users on the phone [486] (wrong banned troll nadirali, that was BhaiSaab ( talk · contribs) that did that). [ Questioning the diversity of wiki admins, out of 1000 or so 24-5 are indian, if it was proportional to world population, there would be 180 or so indian admins lol. He accuses kumarnator of being a "poor middle school kid". A threat to block ragib is here, nevertheless ragib is too smart to give heed to such frivolous threats. Baka man 05:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I confirm unsourced reverts by certain elements of anything that might include or point to the existence of Pakistan or Pakistan territory, most probably to the purpose of edit warring on the subject. Unre4L made a correction and I have the impression this was enought to revert. I am hardly amused by this erroneous equalizing of the Indian Subcontinent to India and suspect malicious intentions, especially here, even creating redundancy subsequently abused as a pretext to further contextual romovals. Rokus01 10:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: So you are accusing User:Dbachmann of being an Indian nationalist? Talk about oxymorons. Amey Aryan DaBrood ^© 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Where do I say "Indian nationalists"? I hold Indian people in high esteem. I mention elements that create a culture of senseless reverting and editwarring within Wikipedia. Nationalists are many and all over, and it takes outstanding administration and excellent administrators to make the difference. Rokus01 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The Indo-Aryan aspect of Sanskrit has been dealt with later in the article, as that Sanskrit is a proto-Indo-European language. It does not merit mention in the opening sentence at all. The opening line as I edited can be deemed fit according to norms.

Besides, your assertion about introduction of redundancy is wrong at the outset, because at the very next edit---in the space of just 3 minutes---I removed that reducndancy myself. In your excitement to prove a wrongdoing, you overlooked that fact.

The opening line speaks about what Sanskrit IS and not a> which familiy it belongs to, and b> where exactly were its origins i.e. the Indian-Sub continent. You could have added the part of Indian-subcontinent and/or Panini's base that lies in present-day Pakistan in the section of History. The opening line's context of Sanskrit being an Indian classical language is based upon its official Status in India presently. The Subcontinental encompassment need not be provided as it is not recognized officially by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. IAF

Mister IAF, for the sake of arbitration I don't have to explain about the principles of a good introduction. Rather invoke a third opinion, if the meaning of the word "introduction" is not clear to you and if you don't have the 15th edition of Britannica at hand to verify the edits you choose to revert. However, don't pretend such a degree of off-topic ignorance to contradict this evidence of introducing error for the sake of promoting the word "India", where in reality a much larger geographical area is involved. Rokus01 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Dbachmann is is not Indian. He is Swiss. That edit doesnt have anything to do with this case. What do you think of this then? Amey Aryan DaBrood ^© 16:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I am talking about this revert. My issue is far beyond nationalism. It is about administrating wrong and incomplete information, and failure to fight nationalism. Rokus01 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Mr. Rockus01 has unilaterally edited an older version of the introduction on Sanskrit, without taking the opinions of Indians or Sanskrit scholarship into any account at any point of time. This despite the fact that the older edit had been agreed upon for many months altogether. Rockus01 did not bother to go through the history of edits.

• He has falsely accused me of disruptive behaviour, even when I have provided with all explanations needed either in the talk page or when deemed sufficient, in the edit summary itself.

• From the first & second points, he does not know the rules of wikipedia himself, before accusing others of "disruptive behaviour" and "nationalism" when he himself does not know the history of the edits and does not take into account earlier opinions.

• In response to the usage of strong words like "Nationalism" & "Disruptive Behaviour" by Rockus01, I too was compelled to use a similar language pertaining to his tampering of the article on Sanskrit.

IAF

Unfortunately this user (IAF) choose to persist in reverting according to his personal view, without minding the correction of Athaenara on the proper geographical location and neglecting the third opinion administrated by bibliomaniac15. His explanations, if any or attesting of any serious depth, have been independently evaluated against mine, but obviously this user doesn't mind reason nor the third opinion of Wikipedia authorized referees. Since forcefully upholding reputation or authority is not at issue in the case of this user, this neglect could possibly point to sockpuppetry or intentional troll-like behaviour in favour of a nationalistic stance. Rokus01 13:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd first like to clarify my remakrs that have been amplified by Nadirali and Unre4L. Yes i admit i did make some sarcastic jibes that could be considered personal attacks. Though they cant be justified, they were an expression of exasperation at the weeks of disruption by User:Unre4L and User:Nadirali. I did apologise to Unre4L for the offence cause, an apology with he choose to ignore [487]. He subsequently ignored my attempts at reconciliation [488]. For all my assumptions of good faith with these guys, i've been at the recieving end of fake vandalism warnings [489] for prodding his article Pakhub for deletion and various ethno-religious jibes. I've decided not to interact with Unre4L atall given his unbelievably insensitive and revisionist assertion that | No Hindu was forced out (of Islamic Republic of Pakistan) well my family was not only kicked out of their ancestral lands but many of maternal relations we murdered in cold blood during the partition.

As for the 'evidence' provided by Unre4L and Nadirali, most of it is empty rhetoric. I dont see this as an issue between Indians and Pakistanis. This is a mere case of irredentists demarcating 3500 years of shared history based on a 60 yr old line. Nadirali and Unre4L have never provided sources that stand any rigourous academic test. Some of their antics include 'cl;aiming' Panini for Pakistan despite the fact that he is called an Indian by Britannica and by every encyclopedia worth its salt. Based on my interactions with these users I believe arent here to contribute to encyclopedia but to merely 'claim' people and histories for their country.

Additionally i find Nadirali's shrill accusations of an 'Indian cabal' hypocritical and ludricous. If anybody is being cabalist, it is 'them' (Nadirali has habit of speaking in terms of "us" [490]).

I believe this edit-warring is unavoidable given the extent of historical revisionism that has occured in Pakistan out of need for it to define its identity different from India's (see Pakistani Textbooks: Politics of prejudice by Yvette Rosser a UTAustin professor. Such revisionism has also taken place in India but to a much smalled extent (see Saffronization). The Cain and Able duo of User:BhaiSaab and User:Hkelkar are probably products of this revisionism.

Lastly i'd like to state for records, I'm no nationalist. I'm a Briton of India descent. I love India, but wont define myself as an Indian nationalist. I believe personal political convictions must be kept off-wikipedia. Nationalism, especially of the South Asian variety, often pits a brother against brother. As much as he'd hate to admit it, Nadirali and me are kinsmen, Sindhis from our maternal lineages. This is perhaps the irreconcievable irony of this natioanlistic chauvinism. Amey Aryan DaBrood ^© 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Block history of 4 users shows Rama's Arrow not guilty of abusing admin powers

Others have pointed out the several blocks that Rama's Arrow placed on Indian editors who have crossed the nationalistic POV line, proving his impartiality. In addition, if you look at the block logs of the four users in question in this case:

• Siddiqui's blocklog
• Szhaider's blocklog
• Unre4L's blocklog
• Nadirali's blocklog

You'll also see 15 blocks against them by non-Indian admins, such as Charles Matthews, William M. Connolley, Mushroom, PinchasC, IanManka, Shanel, Tariqabjotu, Dmcdevit: for multiple 3rr violations, disruption, removing AfD notice despite being warned, wiki-stalking, edit-warring, incivility, and persistent personal attacks.

Rama's Arrow is one of the best admins on Wikipedia. I've come across his even-handed discipline many times. As shown above, his actions as an admin are entirely in keeping with other excellent non-Indian admins on Wikipedia. His impartiality in also blocking Indian editors when needed is commendable. It has helped to defuse some potentially volatile situations. I would advise him to get other admins to place blocks against these 4 editors in future. But I don't think he needs me to tell him that at this point. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Just go through the evidence provided by Szhaider, Unre4L & Nadirali

Going through the blanket evidence presented by Szhaider, Unre4L and Nadirali at the beginning of this page is evidence enough of the uselessness of their evidence. Already it ranges from discussing people far out of this debate to blanket complaints against all Indian editors, and presents next to nothing about what's being said against them. Looks pretty much like a battleground propaganda blitz, not a discussion. Ridiculous. Aren't we supposed keep to the points raised? Or are supposed to make all points against everyone we have a grudge against at every point? The evidence clearly works against the presenters - Szhaider, Unre4L and Nadirali. Aditya Kabir 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems that I am a bit late to the party comme d’habitude. Anyways, as I don't see any notice disallowing further contribution here and also seeing the decision at 'proposal' stage, I must express that to me it’s a WP:POV scuffle between bunch of eds most of whom are not even living in the countries they are fighting for!

While I agree with the disruptive behaviour of the four editors who cost WP database some terabits of diskspace through edit wars, among all the claims, I could not find one on vandalism against any of them on this page. Nor any signs of their misbehaviour with any other sysop except for User:Rama's Arrow.

Rama’s Arrow et al

• Some people seem to have endogenous assumptions never to undo colleague admins' actions, it is rather appalling to see that when User:Aksi great put an indef block on Hkelker’s sock clearly citing Arbcom enforcement, Rama’s Arrow actually Unprotected the User:Rumpelstiltskin223 "to allow Rumpel to comment on recent ban", while he didn't let any such opportunity to the bunch he collectively blocked.
• Interestingly, the ANI Report Rama’s Arrow has refered above against User: Szhaider was also initiated by the same sock Rumpelstiltskin223! And it is the discussion where User:Fowler&fowler was comprehensively grilled by all and sundry for questioning the partial and extended blocks, agreed by other admins as too harsh. Even the legitimacy of the complaints against blocks was also acknowledged by User:Bakasuprman advising him to "have outsourced the blocks".
• More recently, his “ trigger happy” approach has been a source of concern when he apparently jumped into the debate between User:Haphar and User: Blnguyen by blocking the ed without prior warning. More like a repitition of the incidents in this case.
• What I am more concerned with is that he has a history of misinterpreting other’s edits, panicking, smacking blocks, and often ends up apologizing, to prove Dab’s concern above. This means he too emotionally involves himself to hold from immediate actions.

et al

• User: Dangerous-Boy, User: AMbroodEY, and User:Bakasuprman in cooperation with indef blocked sock User:Rumpelstiltskin223 have had a record of tag-team edit warring for competitive atrocity listings, and reverting noted sources.
• The team always opposed blocking Hkelkar sock despite clear identifications by Admins.
  • User:Dangerous-Boy looks particularly supportive of the so called nationalist sock claiming his block is loss for the project
  • At [491] also, Rama’s Arrow acknowledged the sock’s “positive contributions” in the middle of block discussion.
  • At the same incidence, Bakasuprman Opposed the sock's block insisting Hkelkar and Rumpel "are two different people"
• D-Boy's deregatory comments say goodbye to your bengali scripts forever! :-D! is also worthy of notice

I am also alarmed by Rama's Arrow's behaviour since he sees case titlting in his favour, it is your foolish wording of him being... to Fowler&Fowler, I can't be less interested in trying to figure out if you're a self-hating Muhajir or if Szhaider is a Urdu-chauvinist to Nadirali, and Comments to Szhaider doesn't leave much difference between him and them.

Not sure if it's the right place to say this, but I would support a limited probation on sysop and max 3-6 months blocks on warring eds, as one-year block idea didn't work in Hkelkar and other cases, turning them into violent anons, causing to waste admin resources. Cheers. -- Isles Cape ^Talk 18:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply