Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

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.

Involved parties

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

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)[reply]
  • Accept. Kirill 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Fred Bauder 13:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept SimonP 14:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

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

Principles

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)

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)

Findings of Fact

Bharatveer

1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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)

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.

Bharatveer restricted

1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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)

2) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 13:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer&oldid=1138653204"