Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 14:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Statement by Moreschi

I'm coming to this from what's virtually an external perspective - one brush with this user at Out of India theory excepted.

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruption of Wikipedia, particularly on India-related articles, and Hindutva-related ones in particular. He's been blocked 5 times for 3RR violations, most recently by myself a couple of days ago. To a certain extent, however, the 3RR blocks serve to hide a massive amount of edit-warring - a review of his contributions has shown that in some weeks over half his edits are reverts. This is in addition to persistent incivility and personal attacks, which continue to this current date. User:Moreschi/Bharatveer documents some of the problems. Even when not violating 3RR, he will simply not leave the edit-warring alone. I am asking the arbitration committee either to consider supervised editing and revert limitation, or a ban for a year. Moreschi Talk 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: oh, almost forget: I would request that Blnguyen recuse or not participate. For what I should hope are blindingly obvious reasons. Moreschi Talk 16:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Note 2 - there is no reason for anyone to be considered an involved party other than myself and Bharatveer, though others may add themselves if they wish. This is not a dispute over one single article, or even a set of articles. it is a question of behaviour pattern (to Baka: and yes: more recently I passed RFA with over 90 percent community support, if we're talking of elections). I explained to Blnguyen why I think he should recuse via email. Moreschi Talk 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Bharatveer

  1. Please excuse me for the delay in replying . As I was too busy with my work, I was not able to give more time to this. But now since now almost 5 members of ArbCom have decided to move forward with this, I think that it is time to give my version here.
  2. Moreschi blocked me on 26th August 2007 16:08 (UTC). Then on 27th August 14:20 (UTC) he initiated the request for Arbitration even without unblocking me . His remarks in clerk's note should be verified for its timing. Please see User:Riana's comment on Moreschi's talk page and also User:Riana's comment on my talk page.
  3. It would be very interesting to know why he inserted that comment in clerk's note without time signature and also his sudden decision to request for arbitration.
  4. Moreschi's confirmation that all other steps in dispute resolution have been tried in this case is blatantly untrue as can be seen from my talk page.
  5. I started editing WP from 27th Feb 2006 and till this time I have tried best to go by the rules of WP. I have never tried to disrupt WP in spite of having the misfortune to deal with some very biased administrators . Almost all of my five blocks happened due to content issues ( usually some disagreement over words or phrase , for example In Sanskrit , the argument was over the inclusion of a single word "ancient").
  6. Moreschi's accusation that I was using reverts for edit-warring is incorrect because I have only used reverts to ensure the Neutrality of those articles .
  7. WP says Arbitration is the last option , which is not the case here.
  8. In the light of the above statements , I request Arbcom to reject this case.-Bharatveer 06:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Bharatveer 06:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Dseer

Bharatveer is simply and as usual not presenting an accurate picture, as the evidence itself discloses, and is rather simply engaging in his normal tactic of diversion and blaming others. The concerns about Bharatveer's pattern of editing, the bigoted comments, the personal attacks, the endless edit warring even when he is proven to be wrong, are hardly new or limited to this one editor or case. Attempts at collaboration have consistently failed because just as he implies here, he consistently believes others are the ones who are biased, not him, despite all evidence to the contrary. I myself told him I was going to pursue dispute resolution if he did not stop. Thus arbitration is perfectly appropriate here where nothing else has been effective at behavior modification. Bharatveer's regular defense for his unacceptable editing patterns, that he is only ensuring neutrality in all his edits, is belied by the evidence. It can be shown to be false by, for just one example, his actual rebuff to me that: "D.godman, for all his experise on Sree ramana is just another westerner ( read christian) who looks at dharmic traditions through his semitic eyes." Not only evidence of bias and what he means by "neutrality", but clearly false since the expert in question has practiced hinduism since the early 70s and has lived in India since 1976. Other editors have similar examples. In fact, a review of his editing history will show that Bharatveer is a non-collaborative, disruptive and tendacious editor with apparent agendas, including one relative to hinduism and hindu nationalism, and in particular with documented bias against "whites", "westerners" etc., and that he is consistently not complying with Wikipedian standards. I ask Arbcom to look at the larger pattern of blatant disregard for Wikipedian standards and put some restrictions on his editing and ability to disrupt for the sake of the accuracy and integrity of this encyclopedia. Such open bigotry on the part of an editor should be dealt with firmly and quickly. --Dseer 02:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

  • Accept Is user conduct issue and I think we can help. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. Kirill 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept Fred Bauder 13:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept SimonP 14:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Consensus

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Passed 6 to 0, 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Passed 6 to 0, 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of Fact

[edit] Bharatveer

1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) and incivility ([17], [18], [19], [20]).

Passed 6 to 0, 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Bharatveer restricted

1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 6 to 0, 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6 to 0, 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.