User talk:Bharatveer

Welcome!

Archive 1: February 2006 - May 2006 ; Archive2 : June 2006 - July 2006 ; Archive3 : Aug 1st,2006 - Aug 9th,2006 ; Archive4 : Aug 10th 2006 - Aug 31st 2006; Archive5 : Sept 1st 2006 - Sept 12th 2006; Archive6 : Sept 13th -Nov 6th; Archive7 : Nov 7th - Dec 4th; Archive8 : Dec 5th 2006 - 21st October 2007; Archive9 :Till Feb 29th 2008; Archive10 :Till April 15th 2008; Archive11 :Till June 20th 2008; Archive12 :Till August 5th 2008; Archive13:Till October 20th 2008;

Hmmm...Isn't it a bit strange, that an IP from UK only edits the article on Binayak Sen and nothing else. I guess something fishy over here. Shovon (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Religious violence in Orissa. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bharatveer. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 11:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Religious violence in Orissa

Just letting you know that you have already crossed 3RR for Religious violence in Orissa. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User tinu, Please stop making senseless allegation. You know very well that I have not committed 3RR. See edit_diff@10:12 (This "revert" (related to sister's alleged rape) was for undoing removal of a "cited" source. See edit_diff@10:47.This revert was for undoing your senseless deletion of a cited source. As these two reverts were for two different sources, I dont understand how I committed 3RR. Please explain .-Bharatveer (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that you need to re-read WP:3RR. It doesn't just apply to reverting the same edit. In fact there are only a few exceptions. Toddst1 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binayak Sen

Hi, I have requested an Admin to have a look and provide a third party opinion on the article. Please wait till we get the feedback. Till such time kindly do not revert any edits and let the IPs have a run as per their wish. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Binayak Sen

It is not at all clear that the edits you are repeatedly reverting on Binayak Sen are vandalism, rather they appear to be incongruent with your POV. I observe you in violation of WP:3RR. Please seek consensus before further reversion. Toddst1 (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following was continued on my talk page. I am moving it here as it is much more relevant:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Binayak Sen

So according to you, removal of cited sources, completely un-balanced views ( violating basic principle of NPOV, SPA edits are not vandalistic edits.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I observe the edits you are making on that article to be a mix of removing cited sources and adding other cited content. Looks like a classic content dispute to me. Toddst1 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just content. Did you see how "unbalanced" it was. That article was supposed to be a "biography". Any comments on that.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the article has some issues, it does meet the qualification of a biography. Try working with your peers, rather than trying to WP:OWN the article. Toddst1 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:toddst, Regarding Sen, Your comments are really amusing. You made a very "impartial" observation that I was try to WP:OWN.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toddst1 , it appears that you are doing Wikipedia:Harassment. Your edit at Hindu taliban-afd as well as comments regarding my Chandrayaan edit are personal attacks . Please avoid terms like pov pushing and assume good faith. -Bharatveer (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your being reported on WP:AIV definitely got my attention. That's how I found the AFD and have been following your trail of disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Toddst1 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a sec

You really seem to be on a roll here. What's up with this edit? It seems like the information you are removing is well sourced, well placed, and on topic. Frankly your action here looks like either vandalism or POV pushing. Stop. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed!!! Comments from "white house" and a " U.S politician" are indeed "on topic" in a Science article like Chandrayaan. User:Toddst are you aware of WP:BOLD-Bharatveer (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your questioned edit was in a section called "International reaction". You're not in a position to decide that only scientific info should be included in the article - especially since you left the rest of the section. Your argument rings hollow and I stand by my observation. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an answer to your question above, Please look up NASA & ESA to see their relevance.-Bharatveer (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not assuming good faith there. Its hard to believe that you blocked me for saying your comments were amusing. But you may be right because last time they blocked me was for "cleaning up" my page. GOOD LUCK!!!-Bharatveer (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's hard to believe - it's false. To be clear, you were blocked (for the 10th time) for incivility and disruptive editing, specifically making false accusations of "personal attacks", and "Harassment". You should be pretty familiar with these rules by now as an extreme repeat offender. Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 96 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this block in all my humility as it was done very "justifiably" by my friend tod.-Bharatveer (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to extend RFAR

Please be advised that I have initiated a motion to extend your RFAR remedies and restrictions at WP:RFAR. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in the discussion

If you wish to comment on the motion while you are blocked, you can post a statement here and a Clerk should copy it to the appropriate section of the motion. Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to arbcom proceedings initiated by User:Toddst

"Statement by Toddst1

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruption of Wikipedia, particularly on India-related articles. Before and as the subject of remedies and restrictions from the previous RFAR, he or she has been blocked numerous times for 3RR violations, parole violations and most recently by me for incivility and disruptive editing, bringing the number of blocks to a total of 10. 4 of these blocks occurred after the previous RFAR. The restrictions and remedies meted out in previous RFAR: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer#Remedies expired 3 weeks ago on 21 October 2008.

Since the subsequent blocks are the result of very similar issues to the previous RFAR, (reverting in violation of restriction, 3RR, incivility) and it is clear that this problematic editor has not changed his or her problematic pattern of editing, I am asking that the duration of the previous remedies and restrictions be extended for at least another year, and possibly tightened at the committee’s discretion.

Response to bainer's question: I couldn't call my involvement a content dispute:

I had no known involvement with Bharatveer until yesterday when I started investigating this AIV report about the editor. While the report did not seem to warrant a block on its own, I did see editing that concerned me in this AFD nomination for a well-sourced article and much more so at Binayak Sen and issued this warning. I looked further and saw a new edit that removed well-cited content . Since the edit didn't look constructive at all to me, I reverted and left what I considered a final warning. (At this point there still was an outstanding AIV report for vandalism) I blocked the Bharatveer after this accusation. Just to be sure, I posted this thread on ANI asking for a full review of my block and its length. I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)"

Statement of Bharatveer

I believe that User:toddst's response results from his non-implementation of a core WP policy of "Assuming good-faith". According to User:Toddst, he started his "actions" after an ANON reported at AIV AIV_editdiff(12:01, 11th November). Please see the article Binayak Sen. Please note that many WP editors (including me) have reported the edits of this particular SPA even before.)see Talk:Binayak Sen & my request for intervention at User:Flewis's talkpage (edit_diff@User_Flewis)(Time 11:48;10th November). Please see my contributions at Binayak Sen. I had tried to clean up that article within WP policies and guideline. I had tried to add more references and I had tried to "balance" the article by "removing" statements from different organisations, which was "irrelevant" to the article. Please see how another uninvolved editor (User:Shovon) also tried to bring admin intervention in the article. User:Toddst instead of seeing all these has in turn accused me of WP:OWN.

Just after this, he made a string of edits ( wikistalking) where he tried to modify/ remove most of my edits in different un-related pages (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toddst1).(Articles include Tehelka, where he "moved" my added reference to another section; Hindu Taliban, an afd page initiated by me , where user:Toddst personally attacked me and finally at Chandrayaan.

Please note User:Toddst's remark at AFD page and his conclusion of my edits in Chandrayaan page. It will be very clear that User:Toddst instead of "Assuming good faith" is doing just the reverse. He says "You really seem to be on a roll here. What's up with this edit? It seems like the information you are removing is well sourced, well placed, and on topic. Frankly your action here looks like either vandalism or POV pushing. Stop. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)" In this case , I had just removed "politics" from a "scientific" article( note that comments from NASA & ESA were not removed). User:toddst needs to explain his edits here as to why he felt my edits were "Vandalism". I would like to conclude my statement this arbcom proceeding need to stopped as it is very clear that there is nothing "substantial" in User:Toddst arguments. Also please note User:Toddst attempts to gather "support" (from admins who had previously blocked me).-Bharatveer (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note User:Toddst's reason for blocking me([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1&diff=prev&oldid=251093994 edit_diff@todd).-Bharatveer (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binayak Sen Page-User:Toddst action

User:toddst needs to explain his admin actions regarding this article. This article was not in tune with any of core WP policies (NPOV,style, WP:RS, WP:SPA). All this did not prevent User:Toddst from backing 2 SPAs against all other WP editors who had previously edited this article. -Bharatveer (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC). Toddst1 (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is self-explanatory. Toddst1 (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From this [edit_diff@userToddst , it appears that he is not interested to look into issues at Binayak Sen. I will leave it at that.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks in Request for arbitration

Please see the personal attacks by User:otolemur. Request admin action on this.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point out the sentence you believe is personal attack. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this - "Bharatveer is a pro-Hindutva POV pusher" -Bharatveer (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tinu's allegations

please see Religious violence in Orissa. I have made edits only in a constructive manner. Tinu's only problem was with inclusion of references from Odishatoday ( a local newspaper(independent). So he and a few editors decided amongst themselves that odishatoday was not WP:RS. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#odishatoday.com.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Tinu is making wild allegation of sockpuppetry against me.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

The arbitrations have rendered a decision on a request to amend the case named above and resolved that:

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

I have applied a one year block to your account accordingly.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 13:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock

Admins, Please unblock my account as the Arbcom block expires today. -Bharatveer (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]