I am little embarassed to have all your attention due to my deeds and misdeeds. Anyways, I will reply to all allegation/accusations. Siddiqui 16:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC has horrible organization. First off, I can't even tell at a cursory glance who filed the RfC. There are atleast four timestamps in the top section, and atleast two of them certified the basis for the dispute so I'm assuming neither of them were the original requestors. Secondly, what is up with the debate style format. I'm assuming that Siddiqui's comments are in bold; why isn't it in the response section. Furthermore, why have other users added more comments into the response section if they were not the ones to initiate this RfC. Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with RfC rules, yet this seems highly unorganized for me to even know where to start. Pepsidrinka 11:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i'm probably guilty of placing comments in the wrong areas. I'm also pretty unfamiliar with RfC rules/conventions. Veej 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not even aware of the existence of RfC process until this inquisition. I was not even informed by the people that started this RfC. Although they informed many users with whom I had differences. It was Bhadani that informed of this RfC. There should be an official process of informing of RfC to all interested parties in Wikipedia. Siddiqui 17:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should also be an official process of answering direct questions about ones behaviour at wikipedia. Veej 17:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fine difference between not informing a person against whom the charges are laid and the issue of answering direct questions. In US, the case can be thrown out if the Police does not inform the person of his rights. This is not USSR where the the whole judicial process is kept secret and the person is sent to gulag without knowing the charges. Siddiqui 17:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Dangerous-Boy 09:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you blank of the referenced quote from JI’s official site shown here, blank the totally uncontroversial GlobalSecurity.org link shown here and vandalise the referenced direct quote shown here? Veej 18:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this page reorganized ? All parties should be consulted before changing the format or reorganizing the discussion. All my answers and explanations have been moved. You cannot change this in the middle of a discussion. New allegations have appeared. Siddiqui 23:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the 14th time;

Why did you blank the referenced quote from JI’s official site shown here, blank the totally uncontroversial GlobalSecurity.org link shown here and vandalise the referenced direct quote shown here? Veej 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the discussion should be moved from "Evidence of disputed behavior" to "Dicussion" as is the norm (apparently) for RFCs. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the norm is for ALL discussion to be on this page ONLY:

==Discussion==

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

This whole RfC has become a complete mess.--Nemonoman 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well shouldnt there be an ArbCom ? File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]