Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Bharatveer violated WP:AGF via race-oriented comments in edit summaries
In my limited experience with Bharatveer, I noticed him edit warring at Out of India theory without participating in the talk page discussion. To my dismay, I found that Bharatveer made race-oriented plays off of others' edit summaries:

As the article is about a nationalist fringe theory, I and others often revert various promotional changes with edit summaries such as "rv-whitewashing" (examples: )

Bharatveer responded to some of these with and. The use of "white" is clearly a race-oriented remark, implying that somehow the supposed 'whiteness' of I and other editors is what inspired us to undo promotional edits and versions, or that we support a different version because of our 'whiteness', instead of a good faith interest in the quality of the article. I found this not only to be a violation of WP:AGF, but also a rather offensive one that is the last thing we should be seeing from an active editor of about one and a half years of WP experience. The Behnam 16:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring, reversion as first recourse
Literally hundreds of examples, but here are some....note also virtually non-existent use of the talk page in comparison to number of revert-wars.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - edit-warring in tandem with Hkelkar sock (note: big edit war in between reverts).
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - just pointless reverting: the only reason for this seems to be disagreement with this user concerning other issues.

Incivility, personal attacks
Fair chunk of this, too, though admittedly most (though not all) of it is older - talkpage incivility has been replaced mostly by straight reverting.
 * 
 * 
 * - Godwin's law par excellence! Ouch!
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

3rr and edit warring

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Edit warring, senseless reverting

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - reverts to add wholly unsourced.
 * - fairly significant POV-pushing.
 * - um - I'm sorry - reverts to something with the totallydisputed tag?
 * - and does so again.
 * - and so again, despite 3 people rejecting this version. Doesn't discuss at all on the talk page, naturally.

3rr

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

And more 3rr, edit-warring

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

3rr

 * 

Summary of evidence
Evidence presented clearly shows a long pattern of disruptive edit-warring, accompanied by a nice healthy dose of three-revert rule violations, personal attacks and incivility. Given his multiple blocks and multiple warnings, Bharatveer must know this sort of conduct is unacceptable, yet he will not refrain. My investigations have lead me to question whether he is really here to build an encyclopedia, or, as seems more likely, he is simply here to fight all day and night. Reverting the changes of others as a majority of edits (and, if I exaggerate, it's not by much) is not conducive to constructing the harmonious editing club that produces the best results. Moreschi Talk 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Vinay Jha
Vinay has a point: I'm no longer sure banning Bharatveer, even temporarily, is the best solution. There are so many socks running around India-related articles that adding more the mix may not help. As regards the rest - yes, many of my diffs relate to petty manners, but that's because Bharatveer chooses to edit-war over uniquely petty things, violating 3RR in the process and getting blocked! Bharatveer's disruptive editing cannot, I think, be called into doubt, even if sometimes the direct impact is limited: the indirect impact, on the other hand, of promoting an atmosphere of reverts in place of discussion, does harm the encyclopedia. Moreschi Talk 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive, noncollaborative editing
Please note that on the Ramana Maharshi page, Bharatveer has made many disruptive edits. He began by introducing inaccurate statements into the article. When these errors were pointed out, he simply reverted over and over to his own opinions, refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion on the talk page -- though he did point out on the talk page that the suggestions of one of the most widely respected experts on Ramana Maharshi (David Godman) should be disregarded because he was a "westerner, read christian" (Godman is not a Christian). I was shocked that these kinds of remarks would be permitted on wikipedia.

I tried to engage Bharatveer in a respectful dialog and got absolutely nowhere. Bharatveer ignored my appeals to rely on the most accurate sources of information to improve the article (there is a huge amount of carefully documented information about Sri Ramana -- such as his recorded talks ... and there is also a very small description of him on Encyclopedia Britannica which contains a number of factual errors with no citations to back them up, as well as a short inaccurate, unsourced biography of him on a Sivananda site. For some reason, Bharatveer prefers to rely on these two unsourced, error-filled articles as the final authority on Ramana Maharshi, instead of on Ramana Mahrashi's own words, or the accounts of devotees who lived with him for many years, or the meticulously researched books of David Godman. When the very specific and provably wrong details in the Encyclopedia Britannica article were carefully pointed out to Bharatveer, he completely ignored this, and kept reinstating the Encyclopedia Britannica citation.

Bharatveer also refused (until yesterday, when he finally stopped doing his quick reverts) to allow the inclusion of such seemingly innocuous details as the fact that Ramana Maharshi was born in South India, though every biography and account of Ramana Maharshi says he was born in South India and never once left there during his life time. To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, to suggest otherwise. Yet with no explanation or discussion, Bharatveer will not tolerate the inclusion this historical detail.

I worked for many months to improve the accuracy and quality of the Ramana Maharshi page and was dismayed to realize that someone who either does not know the facts of Ramana Maharshi's life and teaching (or does, but prefers to rewrite history) could come along and put in errors and hit "revert" every time it was established with high quality sources that these were, in fact, errors.

Here is an example of my trying to engage Bharatveer in meaningful discussion He ignored the content of my explanation, said this:
 * 
 * suggesting I had a personal problem with the word Hindu (which I certainly don't -- I was just trying to make the article accurate) and put the article back the way he wanted it.

Incivility/personal attack
Here is a quote from Bharatveer on the Ramana Maharshi talk page: "D.godman, for all his experise on Sree ramana is just another westerner ( read christian) who looks at dharmic traditions through his semitic eyes." Please reassure me that this sort of charge is not permitted on wikipedia. It seems about as far as one could get from a respectful, collaborative spirit.

Racist Edits and Personal Attacks on Editors
I concur 100% with the other editors that Bharatveer's edits regularly include unapologetic racism and personal attacks on editors based on their origin. I noticed a tendency toward bigotry in his overall edit history which other editors have documented, but I want here to highlight the issue of his editing on the Ramana Maharshi article and discussion. His edits there in disputing well documented material includes a directly racist attack on David Godman, a Wikipedia editor, noted expert and published author on the subject who has lived in India since 1976, who he claims "...is just another westerner ( read christian) who looks at dharmic traditions through his semitic eyes...". See: []. He was confronted with this bigotry here: [] and here [] by two different editors, but offered no apology and claimed instead he was being personally attacked: [].

Edit Warring and Repeated Reversion
See: [], [], [], [], []. Note: I have outlined in detail why these edits are not acceptable and as a result have POVd the article: []

Summary
Bharatveer has been given adequate warnings for his bigoted edits and attacks, and his pattern of bigoted and tendacious editing across Wikipedia. Bharatveer also routinely engages in non-collaboration, edit warring, OR and POV editing which has measurably harmed the accuracy and integrity of Wikipedia. I urge the strongest action be taken against this habitual and unrepentant bigot, and because of his unrepentant bias and extreme tendaciousness relative to the subject he should be restricted indefinitely from editing all articles having remotely to do with India or Hinduism. --Dseer 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Inaccurate Assessment by V Jha
This is a totally inaccurate and glossed over assessment of what happened. And it interesting that he claims that "whitewashing" was misinterpreted while ignoring the other comments, avoiding the obvious racial import of his many documented statements with such overtones. In a nutshell, David Godman, noted expert on the subject, pointed out a number of misleading points in the article on the talk page. Iddli made an attempt to incorporate those comments. Bharatveer totally changed that section in direct conflict with Godman's suggestions on the talk page without any prior discussion, and when I saw that I challenged him for doing so, he made those infamous references to Godman's race and claimed religion as a reason for dismissing Godman, as well as providing dubious sources and OR in relation to those sources, refusing to allow more accurate statements and better sources that conflicted with his POV. A short, stub like article requiring a subscription to fully view on Britannica online is clearly not an infallible source and no substitute for more detailed and researched biographies, particularly when errors were documented. Neither is a short one page biography with documentable errors and intended to represent the view of another guru rather than the subject. A statement sourced in isolation from detailed material by Godman solely to support a position that Ramana was not opposed to idol worship (which was never in dispute) to cause the reader to make misleading inferences about the relative importance of this subject is simply OR, and misuse of the source. Attempts to incorporate Bharatveer's concerns without skewing the article or presenting a minority position as fact were simply rebuffed. And this does not explain why his ally Bakasuprman who has also supported him here suddenly came on the talk page and claimed the issue was only my denying that Ramana was Hindu, when that was not the case and there was no evidence for it in my edits, only Bharatveer's claims, and thus obviously coming from other than a impartial position to begin with and likely from backdoor communications since there was no communication on the talk pages, as a number of editors have previously asserted. Despite these claims, the fact is that when I saw Bharatveer was determined to foist his POV on the article, I did not push an edit war, I POV'd the article, offered an extensive discussion which Bharatveer refused to acknowledge, and sought the input of a neutral admin who pointed out that Bharatveer needed to show sources to show Ramana was not Tamil which he did not. As for why V Jha found Bharatveer more amenable, given his racial, religious and ethnic comments as well as his political position, a reasonable person could infer that might have something to do the difference. Hasty does not explain any of this, and even if it did, an editor is responsible for collaboration, NPOV and accurate editing regardless. Let's cut to the chase here and use common sense. Which would a typical editor find more reliable, a stub like article on Mahatma Ghandi without sources, or a more lengthy, well researched and sourced biography? If there was an apparent conflict with better sources, most likely due to over simplification, what editor would only feature a section from the stub like article, or highlight material out of context, and ignore the more detailed, researched and sourced biography and reference material? What editor would dismiss a foremost authority on a subject with racial and religious comments when they do not agree with them. To do so would be strongly suggestive of a POV, I submit. I am fully prepared to discuss the rationale for every one of my edits since Bharatveer changed the article if desired. --Dseer 05:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Further Response to V Jha
Apologies to V Jha for mispelling the name (I've corrected) but since I was only editing my section I was going from memory. Otherwise, what relation does this have? V Jha's experiences resolving a quarrel with Bharatveer are his own, not shared by many others. I did not advocate a permanent ban from Wikipedia and even if I did, should we not discipline editors simply because they may try and evade the consequences? V Jha says "I do not endorse the attempt of Godman, Dseer and Iddli to dissociate Raman Maharshi from Hinduism, because Raman Maharshi neither renounced Hinduism nor joined or started any other religion", but since I deny that, where is the evidence for that blanket statement, and why is Bharatveer deleting the correct assertions that Ramana Maharshi was Tamil, which is even more accurate? V Jha himself as well as Bharatveer is being "hasty" in misreading the points Godman has made which are thoroughly sourced and do not have the implied import, and in ignoring the fact that Godman's works are not only praised by the Ashram but that he was the official Ashram magazine editor and librarian for a long time, hardly an indication of agreement among native devotees regarding Godman's alleged "narrow" views. Bharatveer's racial and religious comments are too repetitive in his editing history to be inadvertant and are simply not acceptable. --Dseer 13:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Erroneous Claims by Bharatveer
What Godman said should be taken as a whole and in context, not parsed. As he said himself it was a nit-picking (in case there is anyone unclear as to the meaning of that term, it is defined by a dictionary as meaning "too much minor, overly particular criticism") point, and if something like that angers Bharatveer enough to provoke such inappropriate racial and religious comments, whose problem is that? What Godman said in totality on the issue was: "And now a couple of nit-picking points...I would also say that it is misleading to say that he was a Hindu. His state transcended all categories, including the religion he was born into. For what it is worth, there was a court case in the 1950s and 60s (cases drag on for years here) over the ownership of Ramanasramam. Bhagavan's family were contesting an attempt by the Hindu Endowment Board to take over the ashram. In his ruling the judge declared that since Bhagavan was 'atiasrami' he had transcended all religions. This meant that The Hindu Endowment Board could not take over his ashram since they only had the authority to take over Hindu establishments." In other words, Godman was making a minor point and a judgement exists supporting that point in a legalistic sense, so he is not just coming from a "narrow view" of Hinduism. The dilemma is simply how to express this kind of nuance in the context of defining Sri Ramana as a Hindu, and I think amplifying and clarifying language can accomplish that while retaining the reality that his transcendant "atiasrami" state is recognized by Hinduism and is consistent with it.

Once again, I point out that my first edit in response to Godman's comments and Bharatveer's radical changes containing clear factual errors was this: "Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a nondualist Indian Sage of Hindu origin who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in India. Although born a brahmin and often considered a Hindu guru, he renounced his caste and later declared himself to be atiasrami, unattached to anything in life and beyond all such restrictions [1]. He asserted his primary teaching was the radiant silence said to emanate from him as a result of his Self-abidance. Though his teaching is consistent with and generally associated with Hinduism, the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta, Sri Ramana gave his approval to a variety of paths and practices from various religions [2]. Sri Ramana, when asked "What is the fastest way to realise the Self?" would recommend self-enquiry, the practice he is most widely associated with." In this first, futile attempt to collaborate with Bharatveer, you can see I deliberately restored the term Hindu removed by another editor to the introduction while qualifying and elaborating on the reasons behind Godman's concerns. I do not think Godman's concern was as much with the term Hindu as with the lack of qualifying and elaborating language on the term by itself since he was a self-declared "atiasrami". Nowhere did I deny Sri Ramana was a Hindu or say Sri Ramana "renounced" Hinduism, and the use of the qualifying term non-dualist is consistent with modern practice since many Hindus are not non-dualists. Yet, not only did Bharatveer unilaterally and completely reject this, and resort to his inappropriate attacks on Godman, but he even rejected without discussion my final attempt: "Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Tamil, Hindu sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in South India. His teaching was primarily based on his own experience of Enlightenment and some traditional scriptures of Advaita (nondual) Vedanta. He recommended self-enquiry as the fastest way for Self realisation." All the while falsely claiming that I was actively trying to purge references to Sri Ramana being Hindu despite proof from my edits to the contrary, and refusing to seriously collaborate. --Dseer 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Progress (V Jha and Bharatveer)
Corrected the mispelling for V Jha. Have not had issue with Hindu in the Introduction, did not and do not support removal of Hindu references, and I support Bharatveer's latest edit with wikilinking of Hindu. Have added various appropriate Hindu terms to introduction. Have clarified how atiasrami state beyond all restrictions is after all recognized in Hindu Sastras and thus consistent with Hinduism. Have documented non-dogmatism and breadth in Sri Ramana's approach as opposed to "propounding Advaita". Suggest editors with issues regarding editor David Godman's views email him directly rather than attack him personally on Wikipedia; his email address is public knowledge, and I think he is being misinterpreted. I am aware of some groups who wish to disassociate from Hindu origins for political and recruitment purposes in the west, but in this case, where Arunachala is considered sacred in its own right and Sri Ramana is to be reported accurately, I think it is all a misunderstanding over a very subtle point on a talk page, rather than trying to create a non-Hindu Sri Ramana. Certainly Godman did not remove Hindu. I did not, and the editor who left it out has now put it back after it appears realizing that the idea of Sri Ramana transcending his (or any) religion as the import of liberation has theoretical value but was politically incorrect and was causing more confusion than value. I do feel that I went to great lengths to explain my edits which did not eliminate Hindu references which were dismissed and that more talking and less deleting and personal attacking was appropriate. The personal attacks and false charges about my trying to eliminate Hindu were still unacceptable, but I see some progress in this case which makes me hope we can get past this on that particular article, at least. --Dseer 03:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Personal Attacks by Bakasuprman
Bakasuprman's personal attacks have no relevance. His chronic incivility is evident even in his flippant, hostile responses here defending Bharatveer, his proud display of the complaints he's received from numerous editors on his user page, and his recent refusals to acknowledge that several editors who have already complained about his serious misconduct on the Wikiboards have valid concerns, which I simply suggested warrant further, separate arbitration. Obviously despite his claims I have not been exposed as a "troll" ; the evidence shows 'Baka' has consistently made false claims about my position on the Hindu issue ; and the comments I made about his edits were in response to this false claim about the issue and review of his editing pattern including similar conclusions several other editors came to before me. This personal attack came after I commended Bharatveer's most recent edit on Ramana Maharshi which I supported, and subsequent diffusion of the Hindu issue on that article. These irrelevant personal attacks do not aid Bharatveer's case and can only IMO undermine what little credibility 'Baka' has on this topic. --Dseer 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dseer and Iddli's charges are misconceived
See the history of Ramana Maharshi, Bharatveer's last contribution there was made on July 22, in which he added many references to unreferenced statements, while Dseer was edit-warring against Bharatveer because Dseer wanted to remove those references. Bharatveer cited from Encyclopedia Britannica which most editors regard as a reliable source. Bharatveer also cited David Godman while Dseer reverted these references. Bharatveer's actions there cannot be called disruptive. Whether Ramana Maharshi endorsed idol-worship or not can be resolved through discussions. If Bharatveer relied upon Encyclopedia Britannica instead of upon some editor's unsourced statements, Bharatveer was only following Wikipedia policies and Iddli's charges of Bharatveer being disruptive and noncollaborative is not true.

Most of the charges are bogus, some may need scrutiny
Bharatveer's use of term 'whitewashing'  is wrongly being  interpreted as a racist attack. In one instance cited by Moreschi as an instance of incivility by Bharatveer, it was Dbachmann (DAB) who had started a display of incivility, but I tolerated such insults. An overwhelming majority of Moreschi's list against Bharatveer are mere instances of minor edits or spelling corrections, actual list is very small. And even this actual list has many instances in which Bharatveer may be said to be hasty but not disruptive.

Summarey : Bharatveer is hasty, not disruptive
Bharatveer reverted my contributions thrice, but when I explained my arguments to him he relented. Hence my personal experience with him is that he is a bit hasty but not disruptive. Had I also engaged in a revert war with Bharatveer the outcome would have been bad for all. Bharatveer is a bit hasty, but a sensible editor, and I hope Moreschi and others will try to resolve the issue in a collaborative manner. Expelling someone is not a cure, he may come with a new name. I have seen Bharatveer adding reliable sources to Wikipedia and getting the wrath of others, as in the case cited above (Dseer)! -VJha 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Dseer's answer to my comments
Dseer and Iddli have made commendable contributions in the wonderful article on Ramana Maharshi, but I do not endorse Dseer's hot language used in the talk page there. Dseer is more hasty than Bharatveer : Dseer misinterpreted my comments (and misspelt my name twice, a mark of his hasty temperament). I said above that Bharatveer quarreled with me but I resolved the issue patiently. Fighting does not resolve differences. Expulsion may induce Bharatveer to return with a new name, hence expulsion (permanent ban) will not solve the problem. I do not endorse the attempt of Godman, Dseer and Iddli to dissociate Raman Maharshi from Hinduism, because Raman Maharshi neither renounced Hinduism nor joined or started any other religion. I am answering Dseer's points on the talk page of Ramana Maharshi. Bharatveer should discuss more and revert less. I do not endorse all his actions, I merely want to assert that it is wrong to portray Bharatveer as a person with an agenda of disrupting Wikipedia. I also do not find Bharatveer to be a racist, he merely opposed (in an inappropriate language) Godman's narrow attitude towards Hinduism (cf. Talk:Ramana Maharshi for details). -VJha 09:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Further Response to Dseer
Godman's sentiments were genuine, but he used politically inappropriate words. As long as the lead of this article will continue to omit "Hindu", I think the dispute will not end. Why some editors are adamant on portraying Ramana Maharshi as a non-Hindu is beyond my comprehension. I do not see the world in black and white, and prefer resolution of all disputes for the better and not for for the worse. Dseer again wrongly spelled my name ; although it does not harm me (if I add he is hasty he may start a quarreel). What Dseer has stated above under "Response to Erroneous Claims by Bharatveer" is welcome, and Dseer should implement his views in the lead of that article by adding a single word Hindu (besides Tamil), and I will support Dseer. Then, I believe Dseer's disagreement with Bharatveer will also end. There is no point in blowing a dispute out of all proportions. Parallels with upanishadic teachings as drawn by Swami Sivananda should also be quoted in brief. -VJha 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Moreschi
I endorse Moreschi's statement :"promoting an atmosphere of reverts in place of discussion, does harm the encyclopedia." I have myself faced reverting without discussing as a policy (not habitual) of even some experiencerd editors. Even well-sourced contents are reverted without discussion. I think no one should have a right to revert without discussion and waiting for at least a day for response, excepting exceptional cases like vandalism. -VJha 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to irrevant points raised
Bakasuprman complained of personal attack from Dseer, and then Dseer complained of the same from the former. These issues are not related to the present issue now and should not be raised here. The real issue was related to Ramana Maharshi article which Dseer has now rectified, and I hope Bakasuprman must have liked Dseer's action. I request both of them to bury the hatchet. -VJha 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF, Race & The Behnam
Please see[]. Please see how unbalanced was the version which was being supported by the AIT-supporters .I was just restoring the article to its previous version with sources and this in no way cannot be termed as "edit warring". Regarding evidences collected( edit diffs 4,5) by User: The Behnam should read WP:AGF himself. The "race" issue is entirely a creation of his own puerile imagination.

User:Moreschi
Please note that User:Moreschi 's allegations of "edit-warring" & "reversion as first recourse" are misleading. Most of these edits were made to restore the article to the version with reliable references. I have only reverted those articles where I felt that the previous version was more "neutral" than those preferred by the pov pushers.

Please see the diffs cited by User:Moreschi and my explanation to that edit. I have given explanation for the first 25 edit diffs given by Moreschi. I think this would be sufficient to show that I have not used reverts as first recourse.

to remove the blanking of references by User:Iddli to remove the blanking of references by User:Dseer.Please note his edit summary for that revert.I will explain that in more detail later.
 * [6-diff] .This revert was in response to a removal of referenced information by the previous editor.
 * [7-diff].See how much of the referenced Information was removed from the article.
 * [8-diff] .Same reason as for the 6-diff.
 * [9-diff] . Restoring the article with the referenced information.
 * [10-diff_Rajkumari] . Please note that revert was to remove the vague and inaccurate term "british India"
 * [11-dif].Another case of removal of referenced information.
 * [12-diff]How can adding one POV tag be termed as edit warring??
 * 13 & 14 - reason same as above
 * [15-diff]Reason of revert to restore some sentences - Just a content issue.
 * upto 18th same as above
 * [19-diff] Reverts were necessary to protect the page from a Single pointed editor, who would fill all articles with his povs.
 * [20-diff] revert used to remove "ayyavahi pov " from the article.
 * [21-diff] Same reason as above
 * [22-diff] Same as above
 * [23-diff] to restore Ramana_Maharshi article to the version with references
 * [24-diff]
 * [25-diff]


 * Regarding the allegations of Incivility & personal attacks, edit diffs 34, 35,36,37,38 can be considered mild sarcastic responses to down right abuses coming from a famous WP admin. Maybe Godwin's law was very much appropriate there since "NA" word was being charitably used for each and every editor ,who dared to edit with an opposing POV . So as to bring a balance ( or rather completion) "ZI" was also required and thus the "godwin's law.
 * I admit that[edit diff39] was a tit for tat response.
 * I cannot see any Incivility or personal attack in [editdiff 40] . It was nothing more than a mere explanation given to my dear friend User:Ragib.
 * edit diff 40, 41 were tit for tat responses, which I feel now that werr avoidable.
 * edit diff 42 is again regarding Ramana Maharshi article .I will explain that in detail later.


 * Due to time constraints, explanations for the rest of the allegations will be given later, if needed.

Response to User:Dseer's & User:iddli's allegation
This requires a look into Ramana_Maharshi. I will start with my edits there. Please see my edit on July 7th [edit-july7th], followed by edits on 16th july [edit diff 16thjuly] where references were added. User:iddli removed the word Hindu with Indian alleging that it was inaccurate.On 22nd july, I added references to every sentence i had written there and that too from David Godman's' sources ( user:dseer's & iddli's preferred sources)). Even then these two editor's were opposing the "hindu" word. user:dseer & user Idlli are saying that they never had any problem with the word "hindu" in the introduction. But it is for everyone to see that word is removed from Ramana article.


 * The edits of User: Dseer and User:Iddli poses some interesting questions about wikipidia citing one's own sources here. If i remember it correctly, there was one wikipedian User:sethie who speculated that either Dseer or Iddli (or both) may be David godman himself.!!!! Please see Talkpage-Dseer
 * I cannot still understand their insistence for removing the word "Hindu" from the article.
 * More can be written about this issue, But maybe later, if necessary.-Bharatveer 08:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Racism charges looks quite absurd, I was just mentioning that the tone of the article (during that time) was more like a Wendy Doniger's Piece.-Bharatveer 09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Doldrums's allegations
As per WP:BLP, " In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

As per the highlighted part of the above text, I added a referenceThe Marxist from a reputed Marxist publication "The Marxist" (theoretical quarterly of Communist Party of India (Marxist)for highlighting the "marxist connection" of Ms Romila Thapar. Please note that till that time, Ms Thapar was being solely presented as an impartial academician where as her left leaning political connections is well known in India.

User doldrum added a dubious tag on 8th AUgust. doldrum edit_diff1 8thAugust 16:35.On 10th august 11:21, User:doldrum removed the complete sentence,reference as well as tag without giving any other reasons. I remodified the sentence to better reflect as per the souce cited. Even then the reference was continously removed by a group of editors. Many funny reasons such as "Un encylopedic", "WP:BLP" ,"Not notable" were given for removal.
 * Please see User:Akhilleus's(a WP administrator)' comment should,  "Aside from that, it's clear that Thapar does not consider herself a Marxist, and has said that the labeling of Indian scholars as Marxists is akin to McCarthyism. Any criticism of her as a "Marxist" has to be carefully explained, since she has made it clear that she thinks the label is politically charged. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC) "

Please contrast his comment with WP's BLP (esp. the highlighted part). This will clearly show the political pov-edits done by a group of editors in Romila_Thapar article and hence my attempts to re-instate the referenced information should be seen in that light.-Bharatveer 09:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Romila Thapar
Regarding Romila Thapar, I have already explained in good detail regarding this in "Response to User:Doldrum's allegation". User: Akhilleus is clearly skirting the issue why he chooses not to adhere the WP policy on BLP.Inspite of my repeated explanations for those edits, User:Akhilleus prefers to call my participation "minimal". His sockpuppetry allegations are baseless.

Goan Inquisition
User:akhilleus is insinuating that I came to edit Goan Inquisition article on invite from User:rumpel... . User:Akhilleus is being completely untrue here since I have edited many Goa related articles prior to Dec 16th. Please see Goa_Nov16. -Bharatveer 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bharatveer's edits to Romila Thapar
Between August 5 and August 25, Bharatveer added a statement, unsupported by the reference he provided, to Romila Thapar's biography eleven times: (with dubious tag intact from now on!)  (warning me of 3RR). He did so in spite of being informed of the problem in edit summaries, with article tags, in talk page messages and on his user talk page by me and three other editors who reverted his additions. His talk page responses are here and ,.

Following these eleven reverts, he moved from adding the unsupported statement to this, stretching the source to make it look notable.

Other problematic edits to this article include,. again, nothing to indicate why he is doing what he's doing. Doldrums 11:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * the pov-pushing in a Marxist mentioned her name in The Marxist, so she must be Marxist, attempting to conflate history-writing with political ideology and the complete disregard for facts or verification in ascribing a role for Thapar in "Indian philosophy" is precisely why these edits are being subject to close scrutiny. both these issues have, of course, been pointed out to Bharatveer (here and here) to which he has no substantive response.
 * When Bharatveer says "doldrum removed the complete sentence [...] without giving any other reasons", what he means is no reasons other than those pointed out to him here, here, and here, and when he says "I remodified the sentence to better reflect as per the souce cited", he means re-added it unchanged twice and with an inconsequential change eight more times. Doldrums 07:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bakasuprman
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Personal attacks by Dseer
While editing Ramana Maharshi I found the link to his biography on Encylopedia Brittanica noting the Maharshi was a Hindu. For some reason this made dseer's blood boil and he called myself and Bharatveer a zealot, and in the same breath accusing myself and bharatveer of bigotry. Great way to start a discussion. He also called bharatveer a racist bigot. This is a habitual problem for dseer. His inane responses above merely cement the assertion that he is a no-good troll who enjoys disruption.

Trolling by dseer
Dseer, already being unraceled as a troll has taken to x-posting lunacy on the Wikiquette boards (no shortage of vitriol there) and begging for some sort of anti-Baka alliance on Akhilleus' talk page. Very humorous.

Bharatveer and Ramana Maharshi
Talk:Ramana Maharshi. Bharatveer discussed even when being hounded by a loudmouthed troll. He should be commended for behaving in a civilized manner while having the aforementioned attacks continually lobbed at him by dseer, who's participation in Wikipedia has overall been unproductive.

Evidence presented by User:Akhilleus
Since I've been mentioned above, I suppose I'll comment. As far as I can remember, I've only encountered Bharatveer at Romila Thapar and Goa Inquisition.

Bharatveer edit warred and broke 3RR at Romila Thapar
Bharatveer has edit warred on several occasions to insert text labeling Thapar as a Marxist historian (e.g., ), even though it has been pointed out in edit summaries , the article's talk page , and his own user page that his edits are not supported by the sources he cites. The most sustained period of edit warring started on August 16 and lasted over a week, with several users revert warring over one sentence in the article. During this period Bharatveer's participation in the talk page was minimal, and he made no attempt to address the point that his source didn't support his edit. On August 26 this revert war ended when Bharatveer broke the 3RR and was blocked for one week.

possible sockpuppetry at Romila Thapar
It's worth noting that on August 16 User:Outlookeditor jumped into the fray at Romila Thapar. Outlookeditor didn't revert to Bharatveer's version, but instead twice restored a bit of text based on V.S. Naipaul that had been originally inserted by User:Viscious81 (Viscious81, Outlookeditor, Outlookeditor). Previously I had suspected that Outlookeditor was a Hkelkar sock, but looking back through the history of Romila Thapar I see Outlookeditor and Bharatveer edit warring in tandem on July 11-13 (e.g., ), and they edit several articles in common, including Saffronization. This raises a reasonable suspicion that Bharatveer may have used Outlookeditor as a sock to circumvent 3RR--if they're the same person, they would have violated 3RR on several occasions at Romila Thapar, including July 11-12 and August 16--and notice that Outlookeditor began editing on July 11, the date of one of the possible 3RR violations. I recommend that a Checkuser be done to clear this up. Even if there is no sockpuppetry, Bharatveer's insistence on including dubious material in a BLP and edit warring to keep it there, including violating 3RR on August 26, is problematic.

Bharatveer edit warred on Goa Inquisition
On December 16, 2006 Bharatveer made 3 reverts on Goa Inquisition. This was during a very active revert war, with participation from multiple users, including User:Rumpelstiltskin223, a sock of User:Hkelkar. Bharatveer had not edited Goa Inquisition prior to this date, and did not participate in any discussion on the article's talk page; he did make one post to the user talk page of one editor involved in the revert war --a comment that urged the other editor to add tags to the article "instead of going for blanket revert"--somewhat ironic, considering Bharatveer's reverts.

On July 3, 2007, Bharatveer edited Goa Inquisition again, twice reverting a "totally disputed" tag that I restored to the article after it had been removed by User:Bakasuprman: Akhilleus Bharatveer Akhilleus Bharatveer. Bharatveer did not explain his actions on the article's talk page.

These are Bharatveer's only edits to Goa Inquisition; on both occasions he jumped into an active edit war and made reverts without any discussion on the article's talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
In response to the new post by Bharatveer, I'd just like to clarify something: I am not alleging that Hkelkar recruited him to edit Goa Inquisition. Rather, I'm saying that his only contributions to that article have been jumping into an active edit war without using the article's talk page. That would be problematic no matter what other users were involved in editing the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.