Revision as of 13:56, 21 May 2007

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request to ArbCom to provide structure

1) Could Arbcom provide some structure to the arbitration? Please look at the discussion so far, looks like every one is interpreting this differently. Also any remedies and action should be provided after evidence is presented

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please look at the discussion happening on the RfAr pages. It is becoming free for all. Remedies are being proposed before even any evidence is presented. Please also provide structure as to how the accusations of sock and meat puppet are to be interpreted. As should be obvious by now, there is no on-wiki evidence. Rama's Arrow choose to interpret WP policies different then the intent of policy. RA's is also mixing and matching evidence from different sources and selectively providing evidence. Please provide guidance as to what evidence is admissible, how do we insure that evidence is not doctored, and how can that be correlated to on-wiki activity. In other words, some transparency to the proceedings?Sbhushan 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Support --D-Boy 17:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have any insurance that the evidence is not doctored. You just have to trust the Arbcom I think. There is enough transparent in the process. You will come to know what the arbs think when this case will move to the voting phase. Surely the arbs will will be asking the same questions that you are asking, don't you think? - Aksi_great (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments in response to Aksi's statement - I don't trust RA to provide complete evidence and I accuse RA of doctoring evidence. If Aksi claims to have seen the evidence, can Aksi provide the date when DesiGeek said in the email that he is HKelkar? Can he also provide the date when D-Boy sent an email to the mailing list. I saw emails from end of March and I did not see a single email from D-Boy to the list. On what basis did RA accuse everyone? How can I defend myself against any accusation and how can process be transparent, if I don't see any evidence against me? So RA gets to make this serious accusation, destroy credibility of other editors and also refuses to provide evidence to support the accusation and Aksi is trying to defend his action. Aksi, do you have any idea about fair process? The request for guidance was to ArbCom and not to Aksi.Sbhushan 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments So true. Aski has shown nothing but contempt for this arbcom and contempt for the parties involved. He clearly has an agenda with his cabal.--D-Boy 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I support Sbhushan's request for some clear guidance by the committee. A couple of those being accused (Sbhushan and Scheibenzahl) have never been involved in an RfA. In order to defend themselves, it would be fair and appropriate for them to understand some things about the process of this particular RfA, otherwise the very RfA-experienced admins prosecuting the case have an unfair advantage. Namely — What evidence is going to be allowed, and in what way (email evidence particularly)? Is it customary for there to be such a paucity of evidence over one week after a case has been opened? How much time will they have to defend themselves if and when evidence is presented (the justifiable delay that was requested by some parties was very generally granted, with no clear timeline)? You can well imagine how troubling it is to be accused of something with no understanding of how to defend yourself, and then to have your personal information exposed on Misplaced Pages, all at the same time. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

CommentThere is nothing special to be done in an RfA. From my experience in the Hkelkar (1) RfAr, the ArbCom gives enough time for everyone to put forth their statements. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to disallow email evidence until a need to do so has been firmly established

2) Second hand email and chat log evidence is not allowed to be used as evidence unless either: a) permission is explicitly given by the original author of the email b) it is firmly established why on-wiki evidence is not enough and why email evidence is relevant to on-wiki violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Email evidence should only be used as supportive evidence for on-wiki activity. If email evidence can not be related to any on-wiki activity, what is the relevance of the email evidence?Sbhushan 15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment related to Sarvagnya's comment: I did not see any email discussing you in that email list. There was one email sent by DaGizza to lots of editors (not to the mailing list, AMBroody forwarded this email to the mailing list) where your name is mentioned. DaGizza got this from an external website as a posting by someone. DaGizza speculated at end of email that this poster is D-Boy. I don't see how anyone can be sure that that poster is D-Boy. And what is the relevance of that to the mailing list in question? This is the concern I have with doctoring, RA is mixing and matching content from that website to email in the mailing list and based on this speculation he banned all the users.Sbhushan 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bhushan, did you or did you not read my statement that there is relevant on-WP evidence to connect with the emails? If you don't have the patience to wait 24 hours, that's your problem. Assail me for waiting one month? Have you, Sarvagnya and Konstable, forgetten that 3-4 parties were legitimately busy in this period. Even if I had found time and presented my case, we'd still be hung up thanks to exams in India.

Yet another attempt to make the "evidence inadmissable" due to lack of court warrant. Sarvagyna and Konstable are convinced that I'm a lying, scheming SOB. These are 2 people not even party to the case, yet they have absolutely no patience, convinced entirely that I'm an obvious charlatan. Somehow the 159 people who gave me this job missed noting my criminal instincts, which seem so obvious to you lot. No courtesy and not even waiting to see any of the evidence and reading every party's statement, behaving as if the world is about to end. What you gentlemen are conveniently forgetting is that this is an encyclopedia - I do not have the time or the inclination to play fantasy games, blocking, lying, conspiring against wats-their-names.... Until about a month, I had worked fairly well with Bakasuprman. What do I have to gain from blocking him? In the India-Pakistan ArbCom case, these same people were defending me. I applauded Baka's contributions until I discovered what I will explain to you in 24 hours.

Quite frankly, I don't care - I was given a position of trust in this encyclopedia and I'm trying to serve it. If the community doesn't want me to serve, so be it. The people making these ludicrous arguments are so selfish that they've entirely forgotten about the encyclopedia. All their arguments are entirely self-preservative - calling me a conspirer and eventing their own conspiracies.... (Yeesh...) Here's one question - do you seriously think any of your accusations are in any position to hurt or affect me? Konstable, you threaten me conveniently without realizing this, don't you. You lot can choose to dismiss the evidence and ignore the situation and effectively legitimize meatpuppetry spawning off-Misplaced Pages and permit these ideological warriors to parade around here. None of this affects me the slightest - its the encyclopedia on the line. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For RA - I am waiting for that on-wiki evidence; today is the big day. You made this serious accusation and when you are being requested for evidence, you think this request is unreasonable. This is like Bush's search for Weapons of mass destruction.Sbhushan 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow has deliberately tried to sensationalise the issue by dragging names of established users and administrators into this, including completely uninvolved parties like User:Beit Or, User:Avraham, User:Humus sapiens. I have a strong suspicion that he is acting solely on malice and targetting those who have opposed his actions. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a somewhat of a compromise of the "second hand email evidence is not allowed in any way" discussion that was removed because it was in the wrong category. The compromise is in allowing email evidence if the need for it is explained - which has not yet happened. If there are no on-wiki actions that are problematic, then there is nothing to investigate here, logs of people's private conversations off-wiki are not reliable on the technological nor the sociological levels. Unless it can be actually shown that someone has done something wrong on-wiki then there is no reason to take action against their private conversations, no matter how uncomfortable they may be.--Konstable 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Apart from the fact that Nick and Sbhushan have called it doctored, I also have very strong suspicions that the email evidence is doctored. The day before RA posted the emails on wiki, DaGizza mailed me only a part of the 'evidence'. This portion had nothing in it that could implicate any of the accused of any wrongdoing. All that this mail contained was a reference to me where I had been spoken of in less than flattering terms. Clearly, they were only trying to sway my opinion as I had by then already started questioning the wisdom of the high handed blocks RA had handed out. They probably were trying to 'work me' behind the scenes. I asked DaGizza for the entire evidence, but he said he had not seen it and that I should ask RA for the evidence. RA however, was making a case for himself on ANI by claiming that other users including Gizza had seen the evidence and approved of his blocks! There is too much doublespeak and probably downright lying going on here for anyone to trust the credibility of this evidence. And to add to it, there has been an inexplicable delay in RA presenting his evidence. Sarvagnya 23:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing RA to leave real life activities and present evidence urgently for this case. Argument is before block is enforced on user, On-wiki evidence should have been collected. It should be the basis for enforcing block. If that was done there is no need for asking time now.(Unless real life commitment is preventing him from focussing completely on[REDACTED] activities.) Asking more time now gives the impression that evidence is being collected now by matching edit patterns for block which was enforced few weeks back. --Indianstar 02:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy and Sbhushan are restricted

1) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sbhushan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are restricted to editing arbitration-related pages for the duration of the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Given the nature of the charges, I don't really see a need for such measures at this point. Such restrictions are typically imposed when parties are continuing to engage in flagrantly disruptive behavior outside the arbitration pages; has anyone suggested that this would be the case here? Or that there's some other danger in letting them edit for the time being? Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

My position is that I blocked them for their meatpuppetry/collusion with Kelkar. I was within my rights as an administrator to do so. This case has come to ArbCom because a few criticized the basis for my actions. As a result, these users were unblocked to make statements, participate in proceedings - note that at the ANI discussion, this exception was not made necessary (although a brief dispute arose over Bakasuprman's need to make a statement at ANI). While ArbCom decides whether or not these blocks are to be upheld, my opinion is that these users are obligated to respect the sanctions of the blocks as a courtesy to the policies to be upheld and those who felt the blocks were justified. This is different from a case entirely focused on user behavior, where the "innocent 'till proven" principle comes in. If I had not filed an ArbCom based on the reaction of a few at the ANI discussion, these editors would still be blocked as per the wishes of the majority of those who express opinions at ANI. To be sure - several administrators who endorsed the blocks had seen the evidence that is the basis of my actions. Thus these editors are obligated to show some courtesy to the community. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A dispute has arisen on my talkpage concerning whether Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be permitted to edit while this case is pending. Administrator Rama's Arrow initially blocked these two editors for alleged meatpuppetry on behalf of banned user Hkelkar. Partly at the instance of an arbitrator, the users were unblocked at the time this case was filed. Rama's Arrow's position is that the unblock should be limited to allowing them to edit only pages relating to the arbitration. This was indicated in the unblock summary in their block logs, but I do not believe this was explicitly stated to the users at the time they were unblocked. Dangerous-Boy and Bakasuprman have interpreted that they are unblocked for all purposes and have been editing unrelated articles, which Rama's Arrow believes is not appropriate. Under the circumstances I believe it would be helpful to have the views of arbitrators on this issue. If the arbitrators would prefer not to intervene, then views of one or more previously uninvolved administrators are requested. Please note that I am not taking a position on whether or not restrictions should be imposed. Newyorkbrad 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not studied the case to see whether this ban is warranted. Rama's Arrow believes these users were conditionally unblocked, however no such conditions were described on their user talk pages, and I'm not sure that, as the filer of the case, he is the appropriate person to impose such conditions anyway. RA apparently unblocked at Kirill's request, but Kirill also did not specify "to only participate in Arbitration." Thatcher131 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the restriction for 2 reasons: 1) parties have asked to delay the proceedings; 2) Priyanath's section on the evidence page suggests that the accusation isn't suitable. - Penwhale | 08:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to Kirill above, given that the individuals in question were blocked by an admin in good standing for disruption and meatpuppetry, I would suppose that there is indeed flagrantly disruptive behaviour to be feared. Hornplease 22:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to hornplease, the admin in question broke the rules for due process in the block. Admins are supposed to hold up and enforce wiki standards and policy. Not break them. This was flagrant abuse that harmed the credibilty and good names of long established users.--D-Boy 02:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what we are here to determine. My response was merely to Kirill pointing out that this is different from the run-of-the-mill arbitration, and the status quo is that the three editors are blocked. Hornplease 00:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The three editors were unblocked more than a week ago, so I think has been resolved, unless they have been seriously disruptive since then, which I haven't seen alleged. Newyorkbrad 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

At least one of them is on wikibreak at the moment. Exam season, as everyone has mentioned a few dozen times. Hornplease 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Block was enforced based on evidence which is not acceptable as per[REDACTED] guidelines. There is no proof for disruptive editing. What is the need for restricting their editing activities.--Indianstar 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

E-mails should not be posted on-wiki

1) In the absence of permission from the sender and all addressees, contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed --D-Boy 06:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not provide my consent to any email evidence being presented on-wiki. Rama's Arrow has committed to provide evidence by May 20th. He is requested to provide only on-wiki evidence till a clear guidance is available from ArbCom. He can not claim later on that he was "forced" to provide email evidence.Sbhushan 16:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed -- Samir 09:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, should probably read "the sender and all addressees." Newyorkbrad 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited -- Samir 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Selective quoting from private correspondence is not prohibited on-wiki. There are many cases where quotes from IRC and mails have been posted on-wiki without consent. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment This isn't IRC. My email address should not be posted on wiki. Otherwise, I would have contact me on wiki email on my userpage. How can you quote when there is no accountablity? the quote could be falsified by the plaintiff and the evidence and the juries verdict contaminated.--D-Boy 06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a court of law. There a re no plaintiffs and no juries. The ArbCom is not bound by US laws on what evidence should be permitted and what not. If you care to look carefully at what I have said then you will understand that I do not endorse the publishing of email addresses. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If the email addresses are not published, then no the quotes cannot be accounted for. this creates a questionable transparency. Whether or not this is a court of law or subject to US laws is not question. Wiki is the people's encylcopedia. There must be transparency.--D-Boy 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The email addresses can be revealed in-camera if necessary. This is all beside the point. Hornplease 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No. They can't. Like others have said. this isn't a court. There is no national security involved. Arbcom is a transparent process. How would you like it if someone releaed your personal emails for malicious reasons and then someone else started spamming them.--D-Boy 19:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: IRC does state whether logging is prohibited or not, however. - Penwhale | 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mails as evidence

3) E-mails are a serious and legitimate form of communication and correspondence. It is used extensively for Misplaced Pages business. They are also used for authentification of user accounts and identities.

4) E-mails serving as evidence of disruptive activities must be examined seriously by administrators and the arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Emails mean business, unless they have been doctored or maliciously fabricated. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admissibility of emails as evidence

4) Emails are not acceptable as evidence by the Arbitration Committee unless under special circumtances, i.e. when they pertain to harassment or have real-life ramifications, and are corroborated by on-wiki evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Emails can be doctored and maliciously concocted. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Rama's Arrow posted e-mail messages on-wiki

1) Rama's Arrow posted the contents of several e-mail messages on WP:ANI, which included the e-mail addresses and real names of Misplaced Pages users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Well actually I do kinda oppose the FoF's proposed conclusions regarding the disclosures, but I will respond/explain my points fully when I submit my statement. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Support You were wrong again, Aski. He opposed it.--D-Boy 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppport -- it is a fact that RA posted email messages on-wiki; the evidence is in the ANI report.Sbhushan 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed -- Samir 09:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think even Rama would oppose this FoF. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I was there. I watched it 'live', so to speak. Not only did he post those emails(email addresses, names and all), but he posted it in spite of people on ANI(myself included) advising him against it. Sarvagnya 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow and DaGizza acted as meat puppet for Rumpelstiltskin223 (Hkelkar sock)

2) Evidence provided by Fowler&fowler in section Doosra shows that Rama's Arrow and DaGizza acted as meat puppet for Rumpelstiltskin223 (Hkelkar sock). Rama's Arrow also reverted Nadirali’s edit on Rumpelstiltskin223 user page , where Nadirali identified Rumpelstiltskin223 as sockpuppet of Hkelkar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Sbhushan 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. AMbroodEY on his user page has mentioned that HKelkar joined cabal around January middle, Rama's Arrow was aware of cabal since that time and on-wiki evidence of tag team editing is also at the same time. This is lot less speculative than what RA has based his charge on.Sbhushan 13:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support--D-Boy 18:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculative. Just like the kind of arguments RA has provided. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with Nearly Headless Nick, don't go down to his level guys.--Konstable 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment : Neither Baka, D-Boy nor Rama's Arrow , Dagizza can be considered as meatpuppets as per[REDACTED] meatpuppet guidelines. None of them are new accounts. None of them are single purpose accounts.--Indianstar 02:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow posted e-mail messages

3) Rama's Arrow posted e-mail messages, but only after making several attempts to ascertain the community's wishes and hear any possible objections. (, )

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rama's Arrow did not breach confidentiality nor did he post personal information

4) In posting e-mails on Misplaced Pages, Rama's Arrow did not reveal any personal information that was not already present and known on Misplaced Pages. ( and , )

(5) Rama's Arrow did not breach confidentiality as he was a receiving party to the e-mails.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bakasuprman

6) Bakasuprman violated WP:POINT, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:MEAT, WP:EW, WP:NPOV.

7) Bakasuprman encouraged sockpuppetry of banned editor Hkelkar to encourage the conversion of Misplaced Pages into an ideological battleground.

8) Bakasuprman abused and harassed other Misplaced Pages editors on racial and religious lines.

9) Bakasuprman violated the ruling of Misplaced Pages:Request for arbitration/Hkelkar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dangerous-Boy

10) Dangerous-Boy violated WP:POINT, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:MEAT, WP:EW, WP:NPOV.

11) Dangerous-Boy solicited meatpuppets and encouraged the infiltration of Misplaced Pages to prove a point and convert Misplaced Pages into a ideological battleground.

12) Dangerous-Boy harassed other Misplaced Pages editors over religious identity.

13) Dangerous-Boy violated the ruling of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sbhushan

14) Sbhushan violated WP:POINT, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:MEAT, WP:EW, WP:NPOV.

15) Sbhushan attempted to target and harass Dbachman to prove a point.

16) Sbhushan violated the ruling of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

17) Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington encouraged meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry and ideological battlegrounds on Misplaced Pages.

18) Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington encouraged the violation of the above-listed Misplaced Pages policies, thus abusing his position and duty as a Misplaced Pages administrator.

19) Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington violated the ruling of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, substantiate with diffs? I see you produced some "evidence", nice way to spend three weeks. Request to ArbCom: I would like to see the "evidence" against myself, as RA insists that I was the one "whodidit", it would be alright for me to see it over email. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

E-mail evidence

20) On-Misplaced Pages evidence verifies the claims made by e-mail evidence of the violation of Misplaced Pages policies by Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy, Sbhushan and user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and their knowledge and collusion with banned user Hkelkar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rama's Arrow reposts private emails for a second time

7) Long after apologizing for doing so previously, Rama's Arrow has again posted private emails on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence page where a clerk has specifically indicated not to do so. This was removed and oversighted by User:Blnguyen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--Konstable 08:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Consent

8) As a citizen of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, per British privacy laws I forbid User:Rama's Arrow to reveal any communication between him and myself publicly or privately to a third party. Amey Aryan DaBrood 09:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Rama's arrow is desysopped

1) For breaching confidentiality in posting private correspondence on WP:ANI, including the real names and e-mail addresses of Misplaced Pages editors, in the absence of the consent of all addressees and senders of e-mails, Rama's Arrow's administrative privileges are revoked. He may re-apply for adminship at any time through Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support abuse of power under color of authority--D-Boy 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Support exposing personal information without a good justification. Based on escalation at ANI, he should have got guidance from ArbCom before exposing private correspondence.Sbhushan 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the supportive and abusive comments. Frankly, I can't care less about adminship and if ArbCom feels desysopping is needed, so be it - if I'm not empowered to do my job of protecting Misplaced Pages, what's the point of being an administrator? I'm certainly not interested in all this whining, bitching, moaning and endless arguing. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're not interested in this arbcom, then you never should have blocked us and dragged our names through the mud in the first place. What are we supposed to do? Sit there and not do anything while you post private information, accuse us of meatpuppetry, and then block us without an arbcom! you don't deserve to be an admin with such as atittude.--D-Boy 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If I was saying that I'm not interested in this case, I would never have filed the request or pledged to provide the case and evidence by Sunday or Monday latest. All I was saying is that I don't mind the prospect of being desysopped as I don't covet adminship, unlike many others. If ArbCom decides that my actions were wrong, I obviously shouldn't stand in the way of the community's work nor waste my own time. And unlike you and your cabal, I am not angry (anymore) or threatened - I will do my best to see that this case is conducted in an orderly way and that everything is explained and every detail provided. I will do my best not holler and bitch on every occasion like you. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. Also, with your last line, please remember WP:CIVIL. It's disheartening to hear such language from you.--D-Boy 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I told you guys before that I would have to post relevant snipets of the conversations to provide context and continuity. I cannot respect your nonsense about "privacy" violations because (a) I was party to the e-mails (there is no ownership) and (b) is it not clear that the situation is most serious? As far as this is concerned, kiss my rear. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I figure someone else is going to propose it eventually, and it may as well come from someone who doesn't support it: my personal thought is that it is too harsh -- especially in context of Nirav's other exceptional administrative contributions -- and I much prefer number 2 below -- Samir 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that someone is going to propose it. I wholeheartedly oppose this move. I think Nirav did what he thought was right to do in light of the evidence he had. Though he blocked the users, he did make a note at ANI about it. The move was supported by a lot of admins and users (and was opposed too). As consensus was not reached about the validity of the block and evidence, this ArbCom case was opened. There is nothing wrong with what Rama did, this is just how things can turn out to be in wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Nirav has a long history of being one of the most fair and even-handed admins on Misplaced Pages. Even though I believe that publishing people's real names and email addresses on ANI showed extremely poor judgment, his long and very positive track record far outweighs this one-time mistake. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:The conversation at ANI makes clear that Nirav was very doubtful about the details, but came under such fire for his blocks from a subset of people - the same now objecting to his posting the emails - that he was momentarily not thinking straight. Clearly an aberration. Hornplease 13:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments: While I do not have any comments to offer on the merits of the blocks, in my opinion (which I had also presented somewhere in some other words) Rama was forced to reproduce the e-mails, and I think he did this most reluctantly. Considering the totality of circumstances, there is no point in desysopping him. We require administrators who can act fast in the interests of the project. --Bhadani (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Amey Aryan DaBrood 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote, I have striken your vote so as not to confuse people.--Konstable 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Even though Nirav has been uncivil to the other parties in this ArbCom case (see his comments above), I don't think desysopping him is the right course of action. As Samir said, the second proposal seems to be best course of action in this case. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

After looking through some more evidence, I have changed my mind. Rama has used his administrative tools in previous occasions to assert an authority over other users he is involved in disputes with. These are not isolated incidents, and he's had this history of using his emotions to orchestrate his administrative actions, such as blocks against other users. He's jumped on other editors he's fighting against, and he uses his blocking tool when he is involved in a dispute with that particular user. One example is his actions on Muhammad Iqbal. There was a content dispute with Szhaider (talk · contribs) (blocked now for a year as part of the India-Pakistan ArbCom case), and RA continued to his administrative rollback while discussing the article on the other user's talk page. Once the user had violated 3RR policy, RA made the situation worse by instigating a one-week block against the user. He's clearly going to have a biased interpretation of the situation, since he was directly involved in it, and those type of actions should be dealt with by uninvolved neutral admins. His excessive actions in this case (without first discussing) were unwarranted, and his previous history indicates that he has not followed common procedure in dealing with users he is involved in disputes with. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are we voting? Only the Arbitrators vote. We discuss. Desysopping Rama's Arrow would be a grossly punitive measure. In my opinon, administrators should only be desysopped after showing a long term lack of judgement. Rama's Arrow has done quite a lot of good for the project, and that's something we can't forget. Sean William 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment He has contributed lot for Misplaced Pages. I feel he has abused his powers in this case. But Desysopping is too much punishment.--Indianstar 09:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on Misplaced Pages should be punitive, only preventative - that's the theory at least.--Konstable 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was laying off before now, as I do believe that punitive desysoppings and blocks do not work on Misplaced Pages while Rama's Arrow had apologized. However Rama's apology proved hollow as he yet again reposted private emails, very well knowing the opposition towards it and a big bold note on the evidence page asking him not to. He obviously will not learn and needs to be removed from his position of trust. (Please note that it has been oversighted and I cannot provide diffs).--Konstable 08:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I support this remedy, repeated privacy violation after the previous apology is completely unacceptable and a clear forfeiture of trust. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow is admonished for breaching confidentiality

2) For breaching confidentiality in posting private correspondence on WP:ANI, including the real names and e-mail addresses of Misplaced Pages editors, in the absence of the consent of all addressees and senders of e-mails, Rama's Arrow is strongly admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support abuse of power under color of authority--D-Boy 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Support exposing personal information without a good justification. Based on escalation at ANI, he should have got guidance from ArbCom before exposing private correspondence.

Actually Samir, I am more inclined to oppose/reject this "remedy" than the ones calling for my desysopping. I completely reject all your conclusions regarding disclosure, and I will explain my points in my case/evidence statement. I have apologized already for any possible harm due to my indiscretion, but I will not respect any reprimand for doing something I believe was 100% correct. And I do request that all parties be patient and hear out what I and the other 3-4 parties currently away have to say, before reaching their conclusions. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Support This course of action seems to be the best fit for a confidentiality breach. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed -- Samir 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I do not find anything unusual in Rama disclosing the contents of the e-mails including the real names, if any. There is no independent verification of the real names used in the e-mails and even if the users involved volunteer and accept the names as mentioned in the e-mails concerned, the position should not change as Rama was forced to publish the e-mails as no one was willing to listen to him and accept the good faith on his part, and so he was forced to publish the e-mails. Moreover, when people are exchanging e-mails relating to wikipedia, there should be no fuss about publishing the same unless people are trying to hide something from the community of wikipedians. Further, as regards obtaining the guidance of the ArbCom in publishing the e-mails, I would like to add that if Rama was wrong in publishing the e-mails, no guidance from ArbCom would have validated the same as a wrong thing is a wrong thing ab initio, and can not be justified by any other entity - ArbCom or all the one million plus wikipedians combined. --Bhadani (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I differ from your view. E-Mail address is the personal information whether name is real or fictitious. He should not have used e-mail as evidence to act. Only on-wiki activities should be used as evidence. Misplaced Pages allows e-mail for Off-wiki collaboration.--Indianstar 09:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Rama was forced to publish the e-mails as no one was willing to listen to him and accept the good faith on his part, and so he was forced to publish the e-mails. - Thats as far from the truth as one possibly can take it. For starters, when an admin indefs a user, the least I'd expect of the admin is a decent explanation of why he's handing out the block. RA offered no explanations whatsoever. And he hasnt yet. Obviously, people demanded evidence. And once they learned that the evidence was actually private emails, they urged him NOT to release it on-wiki. RA disregarded such advise and released it. Saying that he was forced to release it is funny. Sarvagnya 09:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Saying personal e-mail as evidence for meat puppet looks funny to me. Hkelkar can send e-mail to anybody. Others cannot control receiving e-mails from him. Tomorrow he can send e-mail to Rama's arrow about vandalism in one of the featured articles written by him. If Rama's arrow acts on that vandalism, does he become meat puppet of Hkelkar. If Hkelkar sends e-mail to Jimbo and if somebody releases that e-mail whether Jimbo will become meat puppet of Hkelkar?. Rama's Arrow is excellent[REDACTED] contributor. Most of the people seems to be supporting him because of his contribution to[REDACTED] without evaluating whether he has done right thing in this case as Administrator. Any action on this case against Baka & others will set wrong precedent for Misplaced Pages Administrators to act based on e-mails. Misplaced Pages should come out of Hkelkar phobia. Any action on this case will encourage Hkelkar to finish people he does not like--Indianstar 09:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rama's arrow is desysopped

3) For blocking editor's indefinitely without a single evidence of meat-puppet activity. His actions based on speculation are against established guidelines. In absence of clear rules, he should have asked guidance from ArbCom before taking action. He has damaged editors' credibility and stopped them from contributing to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support - Where is even a single diff of me engaging in sock/meat puppet activity? Aksi has posted some on-wiki evidence related to some editors - where is evidence against me? Also, don't you think we should hold off on remedies and actions till evidence is presented? RA has not presented any evidence yet. He claimed to have lots of on-wiki evidence, why is he not presenting it? He also posted private and confidential information about me on public site without justification. I am getting hate email because of his actions and his actions have turned me off from more contribution to the project. I request ArbCom to force RA to present his evidence. Private emails should NOT to be shared in public. Sbhushan 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support He slandered me! --D-Boy 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Just wondering why is this proposed twice? Was it accidental? See two sections above if you haven't noticed. Gizza 11:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman

5) Bakasuprman is blocked for one year for violating WP:POINT, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:MEAT, WP:EW, WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dangerous-Boy

6) Sbhushan is blocked for six months for violating WP:POINT, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:MEAT, WP:EW, WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dangerous-Boy

7) Dangerous-Boy is blocked for one year for violating WP:POINT, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:MEAT, WP:EW, WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

8) Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is severely admonished for encouraging meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry and for encouraging ideological battlegrounds on Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

9) Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is desysopped encouraging meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry and for encouraging ideological battlegrounds on Misplaced Pages. He may regain sysop privileges by undergoing a request for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Vote of thanks

10) DaGizza, Aksi great, AMbroodEY and Rama's Arrow are thanked for their service to Misplaced Pages and their work for the preservation of WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Publication of e-mails on Misplaced Pages

11) The Misplaced Pages community of editors is strongly discouraged from publishing e-mails on Misplaced Pages.

12) Any e-mail believed to be providing evidence of disruptive activities, violation of ArbCom rulings and Misplaced Pages policies should be privately transmitted to administrators and any arbitrator.

13) Administrators are instructed to delete any posted e-mail without hesitation and warn the posting editor against doing so in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Scheibenzahl/Anupamsr

14) Scheibenzahl/Anupamsr is affirmed as an editor in good standing with the committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: