OK - there is an obvious problem. This "workshop" is like a steel cage match between the involved parties and other users. I've made most of my suggestions and arguments. Unless the arbitrators and clerks (all "missing in action") can restore some sense of direction, all that we're doing is to intensify the dispute. Rama's arrow 17:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Somewhat agreed. The Proposals and comments for endorsement and opposition should be left on the page, and all the irrelevant comments should be moved to an archive page just to keep record. I must admit, I participated in the irrelevant discussions, which seem pointless now, but I believe progress has been made with the current proposals. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 07:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

indeed. this case needs more input by uninvolved/neutral parties, and less escalation between the camps. The problem is that few uninvolved people can be bothered to embark on taking this mess seriously. But both sides should appreciate Rama's arrow's point: if you just keep heaping abuse on each other along party lines, it will not make your side look any better. We get it, you don't like each other. I should add that I wonder what Bakaman's comments are doing under the "uninvolved" headings, there is one stout partisan in the "Indian camp" if I've ever seen one. dab (𒁳) 11:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

This is pointless. For every proposed Pakistani block, the four involved Pakistani users voted oppose, for every proposed Indian block, the four involved Pakistani users endorsed. Is there a pattern? Same pattern goes with Bakaman and a couple of other users, but many Indian users have not endorsed Pakistani-related blocks and have instead only opposed those India-related blocks which seem outrageous. The votes of the involved parties are predictable and clutter up space and this page, which is not meant to be a battleground. — Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 06:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

And remember, all of you: it doesn't help your defence to a charge of assault to get into a fist-fight in front of the jury. If I were you, I personally would not want to establish a character of being argumentative in the eyes of ArbCom. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 07:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

A question: Is it legal to go on other users talk pages and ask them to comment on this matter? Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 13:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Assuming that when you say illegal, you mean allowed, the answer is yes. However, understand that the ArbCom doesn't usually take nosecounting into account when reaching its decisions, and it will look seriously bad for you if you're seen to recruit people to carry on this fruitless argument on the Workshop page. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You mean like this? [1] . This is just a question, since the nature of that comment doesnt look like he is pursuing Neutral opinions. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 16:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That's perfectly 'legal'. — Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I have been watching this RfA for some time, and I must admit that right now /Workshop is a complete mess. I propose that people stop posting material in BOLD as it really really hurts my (and probably others') eyes. We definitely need someone to copy-edit it. Also, On almost everything proposed, the involved parties are arguing each other, needless to say, for no good. If it was ever going to be resolved by arguments, there would have been no RfA. But that's just me :) -- æn↓þæµß¶- ŧ- ¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 02:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It certainly isn't a complete mess - just an obvious battleground. After all, everything said here - constructive and obstructive - will be weighed in the final decision, made by the old, wise men watching quietly yet with omnipresence from the top of the hill. Rama's arrow 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I still don't get the reason of a workshop. Is it supposed to show the conduct of involved parties? Or is it like a 'last way' to persuade each other? Because all the other workshops that I have seen also have discussions, but they are more like, explaining their own conduct (why I did this, how the accusation is wrong, and of course accusing too), but here it is like, everything /Evidence should have is being listed on /Workshop, just not in the 'templaty' manner. Just look at the number of diffs being listed here.-- æn↓þæµß¶- ŧ- ¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Good observation - I think its also due to the fact that all the parties are uninitiated in ArbCom cases. Folks here need to realize that this is actually not a court - "arbitators" act as decision-makers but the process is open to all involved/interested. So I guess the workshop lets that happen. Its not like (1) give evidence, (2) receive judgment. Rama's arrow 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hmm. Does that mean Arbitrators can be "talked into"? :-) Because requiring more than evidence is just that, isn't it? Not suspecting there judgement capability here.-- æn↓þæµß¶- ŧ- ¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Well yes, the purpose of the evidence + workshop is to interact as present the case and data as clearly as possible, being persuasive. To my understanding, arbitration is like a blend of dispute resolution, mediation and court-style rulings. The only real difference is the finality of the ArbCom decisions. But if the parties are able to reach a mutual resolution by themselves, its not like the arbitrators will overrule them (unless a policy is being violated). Rama's arrow 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hmmm.. well thanks for your input. (... being persuasive without being argumentative :) )-- æn↓þæµß¶- ŧ- ¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Clerk note: Discussion moved from workshop page. The \Evidence page is the place to present evidence to substantiate your allegations, and the talk page the place to debate. Brief comments only on the Workshop page, please. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 07:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

1) Szhaider ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has abused other editors ( [2]) and committed racial and religious abuse( [3], [4])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I want to make one thing clear about [5]. I am a Muslim. If someone says that he/she is offened if she is accused of being or called a Muslim, I do not consider it anti-Muslim remark and it does not offend me in any way. For me it is simply his/her expression of strong loyality to his/her own faith. Said comment was posted in the same context and spirit. It was grossly misintrepted. I do not have WP:ANI in my watch list and there was no way for me to know if a complaint against the comment was posted there. I was blocked without any warning or any request to remove the said comment. Szhaider 02:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see User:Zora#Thumbs down which according to Rama's definition is offensive to a whole lot of groups but I do not find it offensive at all. Please note that my comment was criticised particularly because of the use of the word "accused". Szhaider 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Do I take it that you did not consider the "warning" section under Re:Jinnah and Iqbal as a warning? Was not this an effort to remove the personal attack prior to your blocking? The problem with your comment is that it did offend others - you should not make such comments if you don't think you mean them the way they read. But the comment was put out there - completely unnecessarily, as you were obviously aware that user:Baloch Victory was merely taunting you. You raised a hue and cry by expressing outrage at being associated, however mistakenly, with Hindus. That is your own fault. Rama's arrow 03:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

But I was blocked for "comment" on my user page. Warring doesn't deserve 7 day block. Szhaider 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You were blocked on the basis of the ANI report, the personal attack on your userpage and 3RR on Iqbal. The ANI report had been linked to you and I had explained my rationale in the block summary. As to what duration you were to be blocked for, you had yet again violated WP:3RR, compounded with series WP:NPA/ WP:CIVIL violations. Rama's arrow 03:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

And outraged as you were by user:Baloch Victory, why did you offer him your advice on the proper behavior for patriotic Pakistanis? Why did you feel it necessary to comment: A personal note! I am of Arab ancestry. Secondly as a Pakistani I believe only in Pakistani nationalism and I strongly despise provincial nationalism which is extremely dangerous for our country and unity. Szhaider 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Why did you not warn the user with {{ npa}} (which you did - my bad) alert an administrator? The political advice was more important, was it? Rama's arrow 03:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

And you assail user:Bakasuprman for welcoming him in a sarcastic manner (which I condemn), but you were keen on mentoring the user on how Pakistanis should think on key political issues with your "personal note"? Rama's arrow 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems you did not read what I wrote before the political advice. It was that "npa" template. I know why did he post the comment on my page. It was because of that Punjabi user box on my user page and I knew where he was talking from. That "political advice" was meant to prevent possible future attcks from him on the basis of ethnicity. Do you think that political advice was in some way destructive or "offensive"? Szhaider 03:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The problem, my dear sir, is that such political/religious views are not business that have anything to do with Wikipedia. You had dropped a warning against personal attacks - that should have sufficed, right? As a self-avowed "Pakistani nationalist," you immediately connected this user, whose name was "Baloch Victory," with the Punjabi userbox on your page. You sought to confront and deal with this user on this ethno-political level/issue - instead of dissuading him, you were provoking him. What you have routinely failed to understand is that the personal views, background, religion, ancestries, ethnicity of Wikipedia users have nothing to do with Wikipedia. One is required to not discuss issues of this kind with no direct connection to Wikipedia business - this is not a blog or any other kind of webspace - its an encyclopedia. Rama's arrow 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You have failed to see a direct connection of my "political advice" to Wikipedia. Whatever I do or write is always is for the benefit of Wikipedia and its community. Sometimes you have to use your evolutionary skills of Interpersonal communication to understand what motivated an individual to do what he/she did. You have to go to that level to counter it in the politest way possible. You cannot scream from the top of a mountain when someone is drowning down in the valley. You have to go down there if you want to help. Your interpretation of my words is again wrong. I actually calmed him down. He never posted again. You are seeing my message to him from entirely different perspective. You have to read his message to me again to understand what I am saying. Szhaider 06:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

No - you cannot claim you calmed him down - there are many cases of obvious trolling users logging in and editing/vandalizing 1-2 articles before disappearing. One of the pressing points is that you claimed you were upset over his comments for days, taking deep objection to being called "Hindu" and "Kaffir." If you were so conscious about Interpersonal communication, why did you do something so obviously offensive and stupid like posting that provocative statement on your userpage? Why did you use my religion to attack me? Nope, your explanation is full of holes. Rama's arrow 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I never attacked you. I just revealed the fact that you religious inclinations along with your nationalistic approaches to different topics were grossly affecting your activities. Szhaider 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose.He has done nothing of that sort.-- Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Oppose Szhaider has edit-warred for sure, and done it brusquely on occasion, but nothing he has done qualifies as "racial and religious abuse." WP has to be careful about characterizing spur-of-the-moment (albeit animated) edit summaries as "abuse" (racial, religious, or any other). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

No way, Jose - nothing what he did was "spur of the moment." He reverted and reinserted personal attacks. All his unblock requests included personal attacks. The reviewing admins said as much. That is an excuse nobody can really use, for anybody can make personal attacks and then claim "spur of the moment," "emotionally cornered" positions to justify. WP:NPA would be reduced to a sham in that case. The best anybody can say is that if one's emotions are unbalanced by something, just don't edit. Rama's arrow 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Clerk note: Discussion moved from workshop page. See above. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

20) {Administrators should be banned from trying to resolve disputes related to their nationality or religion}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed enforcement is for methods of enforcing the proposed remedies. This is means, eg, enforcing a ban by blocking a user....Or is this supposed to be a proposed priniciple? Or do you want a motion to stop Indian admins from blocking Pakistanis? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 07:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I propose this: As I pointed out, we have an entire category of Indian admins. They have been involved in frequent edit wars. Gnashk has been tagging Pakistan and Iranian articles with Indian banners, angering users from both countries. Samir another Indian admin supported banning Szhaider and Unre4L's lengthy block. Rama has been engaged in long edit wars and has been repeatedly blocking Pakistani users. We have no Pakistani administrator here (Pepsidrinka is mostly away and has no idea of what's going on). No one who would sympathise with us here our side of the story because we are stuck with Indian admins always coming in the way. Neutral admins are not really active in India-Pakistan disputes. We are then stuck with Indian admins using their tools to enforce Indian POV on Pakistani users. If neutral admins were monitoring South Asian disputes, it would help keep wikipedia's NPOV in check on all articles. I find Indian admins (only most of them NOT all of them) almost impossible to deal with. Keeping Admins from neither countries to monitor this ongoing dispute would help make the situation a lot easier.-- Nadirali نادرالی

Endorse . Indian admins like Ramas Arrow clearly do not have the ability to stay neutral in debates regarding anything South Asian related. Pakistani users have been banned for simply questioning Indian PoV, while Indian users got away with extremely Racist comments. At least Admins should not be taking actions against users in such disputes and leave it to Neutral admins.

I am not saying all admins are like this, but Indian members only seem to seek help from Indian admins. Which is clearly unfair. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 23:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Support : Both Nadirali and Unre4L are right. Even on this example, there are links to insults by Indian users which are potential for extreme consequences (no threat intended; just facts of cultures) if they were used in real life but were ignored and only warnings were used while blocking privileges were used to harrass Pakistani users who questioned credibility of material provided by Indian users. Even on this page, Rama's Arrow is constantly trying to to harrass Nadirali, Unre4L and Szhaider by counter-accusations of extreme nature. Szhaider 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I think the paranoia consuming Nadirali, Unre4L and Szhaider is characteristic with the kind of proposals and statements they have been making. They are converting this workshop to a battlefield. Rama's arrow 02:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Endorse Siddiqui 20:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Oppose as the proposal is ludicrous - This has to be the worst proposal made. You may not know this but all admins go through what is called a Request for Adminship where they receive votes based on their merit. Admins who have been accused of pro-Indian bias have sometimes received more than 100 support votes in their RFA. If there are no Pakistani admins maybe that's something you three should strive towards instead of getting into such disputes. You can't stop admins editing or resolving disputes, because admins are picked from all over the world so that they can cover articles relating to different parts of the world. This is impossible. — Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 06:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose per above. ← Humus sapiens ^{ну ?} 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Moved from enforcement per request on my talk page. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 18:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Preposterous - Tragic Baboon ( banana receptacle) 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Before I leave I'd like to post something I got from user:Shanel's page:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nadirali ( talk • contribs).

I didn't even add that there. It was done by Sir Nicholas, all in good fun. :)-- §hanel 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Tee hee. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

It means something very different to me.-- Nadirali نادرالی

What does it mean? That an Indian was respected enough to be voted to adminship. The fact that it pains you to think that Indians are respected in Wikipedia as such is irrelevant to this debate and is getting quite annoying. — Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 06:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Please stop twisitng my words.I know who voted these people.Look at pepsidrinka.A Pakistani administrator.Never does he come to wikipedia and spend his time blocking Indian users and inforcing pro-Pakistan POV.Seeing his blocklog,he has done nothing of that sort.And you clearly know what that template means to me.You don't think I respect Indian admins?You don't think I respect Mr Deepu Joesph (user:thunderbotlz) whom I awarded a barnstar for his kindness.You don't think I respect Parathi another Indian admin for issuing a block warning to a troll for attacking me? No one is saying Indians are not respected here.But Indian nationalists are not accepted as per policy and also agreed upon by non-Pakistanis such as JFD and Dab.Both of them agree that Indian nationalists can be a headache. My point is I think Indian nationalist POV pushers should learn from Parthi and Mr Joseph before using their incredibly large numbers to vote each other into adminship as they do by tag-teaming on articles and bullying users on talkpages.-- Nadirali نادرالی

There is only one problem. To you, there are admins, and then there are "Indian" admins. The point whether some one is right or wrong is not even an issue. The issue is that what nationality any one has should not bother you. Why are you so insisting upon anyone's origin? Isn't it an act of bringing political disagreements on Wikipedia? "Indian nationalist", fine! "He says he is Indian on his page!!OMG!" Not fine. The same you did with me, while I mostly agree(d) to what you are(were) saying, you just went ahead and blamed me of being an Indian and that I use RA's adminship as shield, while there is no history of me and RA of knowing each other.-- æn↓þæµß¶- ŧ- ¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 01:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You are twisiting my words again.Read what I wrote above.I have mentioned 2 admins that other admins shoudl learn from.And these 2 admins that I mentioned are Indian.I never accussed you of using RA as a shild.This is the problem.You are making up things.This same problem is also in the evidence section where the Indian users are making false claims that their so-called "evidence" cant even support.I stated that you have the overconfidence of speaking in an agressive manner because you have Indian admins at your side.I never mentioned anyone specific.But the main problem here is that many Indian admins like Ganshk,Samir or RA are suing their tools to bully Pakistani users.Indian POV pushers are turning to Indian admins for support and that has to stop.Anyways Im not going to say anymore.I have had my say.I don;t know why my first post wasn't enough to explain my proposal.-- Nadirali نادرالی

You seem to be twisting your own words. When you say {Administrators should be banned from trying to resolve disputes related to their nationality or religion} then you mean that don't you? This means that Deepujoseph will be banned from trying to resolve disputes relating to their nationality. — Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 06:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

O and parthi isnt an admin, and many Indian users dont like him. I have a more neutral view on him, but I seldom have seen him on wikipedia.. Baka man 23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I posted this message for people who have opposed blocking him

Comment To (almost) all the people who have opposed above. Nobody is questioning Bakamans contributions. He has made a lot of important contributions on Wikipedia. I know. I am sure you have a lot of good things to say about him, and so have I. But this proposal deals with the comments he made against Muslims and his disruptive attitude towards any users wishing to edit Hinduism articles.

Please reply here if you wish to question my accusations. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 00:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Noting an unfortunate historical connection between a person who has left the earth and unsavory acts that may/may not have been committed by said person is hardly "racism against Muslims". Of course, unreal doesnt look into context either, when BhaiSaab (under pseudonym MinaretDk) suggests Hindu texts promote the raping of women. According to the banned anti-Semitic troll, I am the son of a donkey. I'm guessing unre4l probably agrees with BhaiSaab as well, judging by his attempts to go against the avalanche. Baka man 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Please, Bakaman, why don't you say you're sorry and you didn't mean it? Can't you see, you've hurt feeling and faith of people? If you want to make a point it's always better to speak sensitively. Making comments against the prophet wouldn't carry your point to disciples of the prophet. This is not a battleground for a crusade - not for you, not for Unre4L, not for me either. Please, say sorry, and make it up.

And, Unre4L, please, try to see that our beliefs are a minor issue here. Please, put an end to this Hindu-Muslim type of bovine excreta. We are here to make a better encyclopedia, regardless of faith, race, language or creed. If someone feels up for I propose they can start a new Wiki on their viewpoints - like a Hinduworldwiki, or a Muslimworldwiki. If followers of Star Wars can do that, they can do it too.

And, to everyone, why is authenticity, understanding and compassion missing here? I hope we're not trying to have an Indo-Pak proxy war on the WP. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Clerk note: Discussion moved from workshop page. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 15:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

16) If multiple users act as meatpuppets of each other by reverting an article to the same version to avoid 3RR rule, and any one of them have two reverts and total reverts to same version are four then all participating meatpuppets should be blocked for same period of time under 3RR rule. Let's say user A is trying to edit an article and user X, Y and Z have decided to revert the article to same version to avoid 3RR. X has reverted 2 times while Y and Z have reverted 1 time each. Total reverts are 4 where X has two reverts to his credit. In this situation X, Y and Z, all of them should be blocked for same period of time under 3RR rule.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The arbcom cannot rewrite WP:3RR which is what this is saying. If this is the case, all parties on any side of an argument are merged into one, and you would have deadlock on everything that is disputed. Then you would find yourselves on the talk page, but unless people unanimously migrate to one side of the argument, then nothing happens... Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed : Szhaider 07:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

What is the evidence of meatpuppetry here? Your edits on Pajamas were reverted by user:Fowler&fowler, user:Dbachmann and others - should they be blocked as meatpuppets violating 3RR? Don't invent policies, please. Rama's arrow 15:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

New policies are needed as new problems arise. Earlier policies have failed to prevent certain hostile situations. You are giving example of two respected editors to lower the importance of my proposal. This tactic is anything but honorable. Szhaider 16:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That is putrid nonsense - if you want to propose new policies, go somewhere else. This is an ArbCom case. And who are you to decide who's "honorable" and who's not? Rama's arrow 17:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Please keep your cool and refrain from personal attacks. The major heading of this section says "Proposed principles" that is why I "proposed". Szhaider 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Revert warring is an obvious breach of WP Policies. It just requires someone to have a lot of people on their side, and they can escape the 3RR policy. Indian Nationalists have been using this to their advantage for quite some time. Of course its an unfair practice and abuse of WP. A Block should be in order for such offence. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 22:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Endorse I think he's referring to the massive number of Indian users who tag-team edit war on articles.After all that's how they have taken control of the articles.Take for example how Rama,Hkelkar(in the false disguise of Rumpelstiltskin223),Bakaman and Anupam tag-team edit warred against Szhaider on Iqbal or how Bakaman, Ambroody, D-boy, DaGizza, and others edit warred against me by enforcing an Indian banner on the talkpage of Sindhi literature. These are just 2 examples of countless other incidents of Indian tag-team edit warring against us.-- Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Clerk note: Discussion moved from workshop page. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 15:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

17) Addition of alien scripts to an article to reflect a perspective which is not local to the origin of the subject (scientific or artistic work, personality, religious terminology etc.) of the article should be punished by blocking the user for at least 12 hours. Same should be applicable for the addition of categories to politically or ideologically claim the article for a group, community or country other than that of its origin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, if an editor is found to have been disruptive, eg, by stubbornly editing on such articlesin an inappropriate manner, then they would be blocked anyway; having said that, from what I can ascertain, there is no binding policy which judges which scripts are native to which subject, eg, see User_talk:Blnguyen/Rahul_Dravid#Dravid.27s_ethnicity for one unclear example, which would make this thing functional upon a day to day basis by an admin doing a simple judgment. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed : Szhaider 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

(lol) This title speaks for the ridiculous nature of this proposal. Rama's arrow 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Blnguyen, thank you. I am not talking about regional scripts. I am talking about national scripts like Hindi (Devnagari) or Gurmukhi in articles about Pakistani personalities, Pakistani territories, Pakistani artistic works, Islamic terminologies, Arabi words, Persian words and English words. (See evidence against User:Anupam.) Szhaider 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Languages are national. Scripts are not. No language is bound to any script. A superficial relationship between them exists because they are used by the same people (so people speaking Hindi and writing in Devanagari tend to teach the same to their children and so on...). Except if the script is technically limited, you can use any one of them to write any other.

Also, Gurmukhi is not a national script. India has one national language, that's Hindi. You can actually write Sanskrit in Nasta'liq script, but I don't think it supports all the characters needed. This brings me to the point of removing Devanagari. Urdu and Hindi share a common pool of words (coming from Hindustani), and for those words I don't think there should be any problem of mentioning any script (or language), since they both mean the same thing. Similarly for Gurmukhi, it is used along with Punjabi, and is common in Punjab region. It can, at the least, be used in Punjabi regions. Nationality plays no role anywhere.-- æn↓þæµß¶- ŧ- ¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Neither Devangari nor Gurmukhi are used in Pakistan but they are used in India. Therefore, putting these scripts in Pakistan related articles unavoidably links the subjects of the articles to India (creating POV situation). Many editors have stated that many Arabic and Persian origin words cannot be transliterated in Devangari. I have no knowledge of Devangari whatsoever. Szhaider 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

If the word in question has no meaning in Hindi, I agree that Devanagri or Gurumukhi should not be used. I personally dont agree that no one in Pakistan uses Gurumukhi. Do you have any citation to support this argument?-- æn↓þæµß¶- ŧ- ¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 21:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

About meaning in Hindi; an interesting quaestion arises. Lets say a certain word has an article in context of strictly Pakistan. However this word is a part of Arabic, Sindhi, Urdu, Italian, Russian, German and Hindi with same meanings, however, the context requires only Urdu script, should we add scripts for all these languages or just Urdu? If we add script for Urdu and Hindi, then why should we ignore all other languages? Their scripts can also be "encyclopediac". Just as the scripts of other languages would be supersfluous in the same way Devangari (Hindi) script will be superfluous when the context is sctrictly Pakistan. About Gurmukhi: Articles about Punjabi and Shahmukhi clearly state that Gurmukhi is not used in Pakistan. Gurmukhi is extinct in Pakistan because of no support from majority of muslim public who are readily inclined towards Arabic based punjabi script and lack of support from Governament and educational institutions whatsoever. No one is stopped from learning Gurmukhi but it would have no official status whatsoever. If you do not agree that no one uses Gurmukhi in Pakistan then that is your personal opinion. You are free to have personal opinions. But you too are obliged to present citation to support your opinion if you want to prove it fact at Wikipedia. However, articles about Punjabi and Shahmukhi are very strong proofs agianst the use of Gurmukhi in Pakistan. Szhaider 10:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Which policy are you using to support this assertion? Amey Aryan DaBrood ^© 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Additionally dude, do define, Alien scripts. Your pal User:Nadirali comically asserted on Talk:Doosra that sanscrit (sic) is a Pakistani language! [6]. Your position is self-contradictory. Amey Aryan DaBrood ^© 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Well since the Indians have falsely claimed it (sanscrit) for themselves,the misuse of it can be seen.What's more is Fowler once stated that when he visted Indian articles the Indians forgot to add Indian texts but did not waste a second in adding it to Pak articles.Anyways I don't see the purpose of adding sanscrit to the doosra article since it is technicly a dead language in Pakistan.Adding the Urdu alphabets makes more sense.-- Nadirali نادرالی

What you fail to see is that Indians are a big community. You assume as if they are meatpuppets of each other. You should not think of people in terms of Nationality or origin, which is the root cause of this whole trouble. There are people editing one article and there are people editing other. There are people who know how to write Unicode and there are those who don't (for example, I have no way to input anything excepts germanic scripts). Also know that India has so many languages, it is impossible for any editor to write every one in all Indian articles. Plus the fact that editors tend to do 'one' kind of job, and some are more active than others.-- æn↓þæµß¶- ŧ- ¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 12:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment (unrelated to this this RfA) You should edit Wikipedia using Firefox 2.0 It has a built in spell checker. I also do a lot of spelling mistakes in writing, and it has really minimized the frustrating 'corrected spelling' edits.-- æn↓þæµß¶- ŧ- ¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment You'll be surprised that I once awarded a barnstar to an admin.And guess what he was Indian.-- Nadirali نادرالی

Oppose - This is amazingly frivolous. Baka man 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment There was a discussion at the Village Pump on this alien scripts stuff - check. That resulted in a few proposals. But, I remember the scripts were vernacular back then, not alien. Why are we turning everything into an Indo-Pak proxy war? What's next? A blanket ban of all Indian and Pakistani users? A blocking of all IPs coming from those lands? A complaint at the International Court of Justice? This is ridiculous. Aditya Kabir 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Clerk note: Discussion moved from workshop page. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 15:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

2) Unre4L ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Please also "Note" that the message on my userpage encouraged "debating", and since I was new to Wiki I didnt know the rules too well, so I did advertise the site. My bad. But my concerns involved "making people aware", which I pointed out quite a lot. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Unre4L is discounting the fact that he solicited Nadirali's membership, which resulted in Nadirali advertising the website further, especially an open invite at Category talk:Pakistani Wikipedians. The banned user:MinaretDk has also joined the forum. Rama's arrow 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, Rama. Lets clear up something. You have used the comments of OTHER users on Pakhub against me in the past. Let me just clarify this. I have NO power over what OTHER users write, or who Joins.

And also to point out. I havent started ANY debates or even mentioned PakHub since the article got deleted. I only mentioned PakHub, when responding to your accusations against me regarding PakHub. I dont think I have even been the first person to MENTION PakHub in 2007!!!.
-- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I've made it clear in the past that I do not care about anything on PakHub, except how it has influenced Wikipedia in the way you and Nadirali solicited members and have tried to propagate PakHub's mission of "reclaiming Pakistan's heritage" - [8]. Rama's arrow 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Really, I dont care about your accusations. I have been accused of having an agenda, being an Anti Semite, being a Genocide Denier, having Jihadist views, being Anti Hindu, and being Anti Sikh. Your false accusations dont affect me anymore. Not to mention, you have used these accusations in the past to extend my blocks. You still cant explain all those Anti Islam, and Anti Pakistan edits Bakaman and company make, and your efforts to actually stop them -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Pakhub is free for anyone to join and post their arguments fairly.All sides of the story invited to be heard.There is no rule that says you can't post your side of the story.Take user Ragib for example who stated he preffered calling pre-British South Asia "India" as oppossed to "South Asia".I was interested in why he wanted that.I then invited him to post his comments on Pakhub and use some supporting details to support his arguments.His views obviously go against what Pakhub stands for,but the reason I invited him was because it's a site that all sides of an issue can be heard.-- Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

Unre4L was both new to Wikipedia and frustrated with what he perceived was an overall Indian bias in many India-Pakistan articles when he created the web site Pakhub. His motivation (as I saw it) was to discuss issues dear to him with people who would be more sympathetic to discussing the issues themselves, rather than edit-warring first. As it happens, I disagree with him on many of these issues like the label "ancient Pakistan," however, there was never any malevolent conspiracy to plan anything against anyone on Wikipedia. This is really a matter outside the purview of Wikipedia. I can't stress that enough. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

As a matter of fact, it is NOT as you say it is. It wasn't Unre4L's newbie mistake in promoting PakHub, but the fact that what the agenda of PakHub is - "to reclaim Pakistan's heritage" - is identical to the arguments and declarations and editign that Unre4L has been making across a wide-range of articles. ArbCom is not being asked to punish Unre4L for PakHub, no. It is being asked to recognize that Unre4L is brazenly importing the PakHub agenda onto Wikipedia and causing disruption. Rama's arrow 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Response: I have been disagreeing with Indian PoV on talk pages!!! Doesnt come anyway near to "importing Pakhub agenda". And if you hadnt noticed, I have never been the first person to mention PakHub on Wikipedia since the Pakhub article got deleted. All Pakhub debates have been started by other users since then. I dont like being accused of false allegations. If I have done anything wrong, please do point it out, but dont spread lies. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Clerk note: Discussion moved from workshop page. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

9) Bakasuprman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• "I'm sorry did you take the time to read WP:Undue weight ? Let's talk about pedophilia and Mohammed shall we? Or purdah? Or slavery?" [9]
• "mhmm. considering Pakistanis enjoyed killing them" in response to "some ppl seem reluctant to accept existance of racial and religious problems in post-independence India" [10] edit summary

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Proposed because of provocative insult of Prophet Muhammad. Szhaider 07:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

EndorseHis racist behviour has gone on for motnhs and gone unpunished.-- Nadirali نادرالی

Comment by others:

The massacre of Bangladeshis by Pakistanis (note pakistani is not a race) is well noted. It was one time in Bangladesh of communal unity when Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians were united as their blood flowed down the Jamuna river. O and btw, Muslims are not a race either, there are whole articles devoted to such subjects I discussed such as Aisha's age at marriage, Purdah, and Islam and slavery. Perhaps Unreal in the zeal of the situation forgot to mention that comment was aimed at a banned troll MinaretDk ( talk · contribs) who was found to be a sock of His Excellency ( talk · contribs). Its not the first time unreal has engaged in misrepresentation of links, infact I could hardly expect more dignified conduct. Baka man 05:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment Minaret is Bengali, and he was banned 4 days after your comment. Nothing justifies hate speech. Have you ever heard any other (involved parties) users making similar comments about Hinduism? Rama banned me for saying "I will let you take your words back", since he thought that was a harsh reply. I still dont know how he could ignore that. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

While Bakaman's remarks on Prophet Muhammed are to be reprimanded and are not at all Hindu-like (in terms of religious insensitivity), it should be remembered that this was no worse than the implication by Minaret that Hindu scriptures ( smriti), actually teach Hindus to commit sexual atrocities on Dalits, which is completely untrue, considering they do not even mention the caste system, rather they mention a system or varnas. — Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Cherrypicking comments are we? Amey Aryan DaBrood ^© 14:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Cherrypicking? At least I dont make them up. You specifically accused me of "genocide denial" when I was referring to the Indo-Pak migration. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 15:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

MinaretDk is not bengali unre4l, he is Persian pretending to be Bangladeshi. But then again, what do I know, I'm the son of a donkey according to esteemed Minaret. I'm not even bengali and I could understand the vulgar nonsesnse and hate-speech that emanated from his keyboard. Oh and I never made any allegations against Mohamed, I merely stated a connection that has been documented. Not anything compared to minaret alleging that South Indian priests (a.k.a. my ancestors) raped dancers in temples. Hate begets hate unreal, though your advocacy for banned trolls is not surprising. Baka man 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I condemn all the insults he threw at you, but your comments cannot be compared to those. You lashed out on Muslims, with a very specific comment which has been exaggerated to insult Muslims since the recent War on Terror. You should know the respect billions of people hold for the Prophet, and sorry, but I dont assume faith because your intentions were very clear.

I have been avoiding a lot of topic, to not unnecessarily insult Hindus, and I thought you would have the slightest respect for that. Apparently not. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 17:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

So noting a connection between a dead man and certain unsavory (yet historically documented) acts is worse than calling whole clans rapers of women? Or calling an alive man son of a donkey? The comments werent aimed at you, they were aimed at MinaretDk ( talk · contribs) who turned out to be BhaiSaab ( talk · contribs). I have no respect for BhaiSaab and have no qualms insulting a banned troll. Baka man 17:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You never stop twisting things do you? The 2nd part of your comment (about the rapes) was added Later, and I didnt see it when I replied to your comment [11]. You can insult "banned trolls" all you want, but preferably after they get the ban. And also dont insult every muslim who reads you comments, when insulting these "trolls". Thank you. -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 20:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Clerk note: Discussion moved from workshop page. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 16:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC) reply

10) Bakasuprman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Reverts a figure backed up with several sources, with a figure backed up with no sources. No explanation provided [12]
• Reverts of Disputed tags [13] [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Unre4L ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

There has to be something on the talk page. Anybody taking what amounts to a glance at the template would notice that. Your "several sourcees" included party and company websites and also involved selective quoting of a certain website ignoroing the all around lower estimated the site takes. Baka man 05:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

This user has been actively disrupting all Pakistani and related articles to fit Indian POV.This has been going on for a long,long time.-- Nadirali نادرالی

Disruption is a very big word coming from a user blocked multiple times in the last month for disruption. Cut to the chase, just call me a Hindu fanatic. infact articlewise I can safely say I have added more to Pakistan related articles than you without needing to waste my time spamming for off-wiki forums and creating vast conspiracies about India cabals and WP:POINT violations. Baka man 04:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply

A block from a biased admin RA doesn't count as a block.Here we have neutral admins like Dab who even stated that you're behaviour is a serious problem.-- Nadirali نادرالی

Dab? Like I care what he thinks, to him I am a chatterbot from BJP headquarters. Baka man 04:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Your repeated racist "texbook" comments and your bringing up religion out of nowhere into every discussion will only give others a reason to agree with his arguments regarding your behaviour.-- Nadirali نادرالی

I didnt know insulting pieces of paper is now racism. Baka man 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

"You reffer to some (madrassa) textbooks for you sources".That attacks more than paper.Anyways.I don't have much more to say.-- Nadirali نادرالی

Admins, what do you think of giving Wikipedia:Article probation to the involved and accused parties.? Szhaider 03:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply