Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Compliance
1) All Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to comply with policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Moreschi Talk 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring considered harmful
2) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Moreschi Talk 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground
3) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable. Users who come to Wikipedia solely to fight are considered a disruptive influence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. These are mostly taken over from other arbitration cases, including Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 . Moreschi Talk 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Disruptive editing
4) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Moreschi Talk 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Civility
5) Wikipedia requires reasonable courtesy toward other users, including an assumption of good faith on their part. Long-term conduct that violates Civility and No personal attacks is not accepted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Moreschi Talk 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) Racial, religious and/or ethnic references directed against another contributor as a personal attack and/or employed as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views are not acceptable, per WP:NPA.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Disruptive editing
1) Bharatveer has engaged in editing which has been disruptive and caused unnecessary conflict with other users.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Moreschi Talk 17:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Revert-warring
2) Bharatveer has disruptively revert-warred, mostly over articles relating to India. This has earned him no less than 5 blocks, all for violating the three-revert rule.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Moreschi Talk 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Long history
3) Bharatveer has a long history of edit warring, and has used reverting, rather than discussion, as an editing technique.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Per evidence, and to some degree substantiated by his own statement. Despite his occasional admonitions of others, Bharatveer's virtually non-existent use of talk pages himself is highly indicative. Moreschi Talk 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Civility
4) Bharatveer has been incivil, and has made personal attacks towards editors whom he disagrees with.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Per evidence - some of these were not at all nice. Moreschi Talk 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) In particular, Bharatveer has made irrelevant and multiple racial, religious and/or ethnic references, both in making personal attacks and to dismiss and/or discredit those he disagrees with.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Per evidence, e.g., references to "white", "westerner", "christian", "semitic". --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Dseer
6) Refer to the section with the same name in evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Opposed. Irrelevant to main issue/inaccurate. Bharatveer's initial, racial and religious attacks focusing on "Hindu" issue harmed discussion; but the "Hindu" issue has since been resolved. Bakasupram's counterproductive involvement was to revert and ridicule other editors as not understanding "Duck", while ignoring detailed statements about rationale, inaccuracies and the unwarranted racial and religious remarks, instead falsely framing dispute as only an attempt to remove "Hindu", see .--Dseer 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the only dispute I had on the page. Or am I a zealot? Baka man  18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Dseer's name-calling poisoned the atmosphere of discussion. Baka man  17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Banned
1) As a result of his continued disruptive editing, Bharatveer's editing privileges are revoked for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Preferred. Not sure. This is an option, and Bharatveer's disruptive editing (per evidence) does warrant this, but adding more socks to the already lethal mix of India-related articles may not help. Proposing a halfway house between a full siteban and supervised editing (also an option) below. Moreschi Talk 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. If this was a newer editor I'd support one of the alternatives, but as he should know better after 1 and a half years, I think that tasking others to 'supervise' him and the like is just a waste of others' time.  The Behnam 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Editor has been cautioned repeatedly but remains unrepentant and unwilling to stop disruptive editing. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose - A capricious proposal, based on whim. Baka man  23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Supervised editing
2) Bharatveer is permanently placed on supervised editing. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts by edit-warring or tendentious editing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Alternative, or perhaps complementary, to a ban. Moreschi Talk 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can also support if changed to indefinitely placed on supervised editing. That allows the offending editor an opportunity to show they have progressed beyond the disruptive behavior. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Revert limitation
3) Bharatveer is limited to one revert per article per week, excluding simple vandalism, for a period of one year. Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Alternative to a ban. Moreschi Talk 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Civility supervision
4) Bharatveer is placed on standard civility supervision for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, per evidence. Alternative to a ban. Moreschi Talk 18:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can support, however, I suggest that if any uncivil, personal attacks include unacceptable references to race, religion, and or ethnicity, a much longer ban should be imposed. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose - Which admin? Certainly not one with clouded judgment already involved in combating him on articles. Baka man  23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Topic ban
5) Bharatveer is banned from editing all articles relating to India, loosely defined, for a year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed as compromise between a full siteban and supervised editing. A full siteban may simply land us with a new sockfarm to deal with, and Vinay may well be correct when he says that such a cure is worse than the disease (my phrasing). Supervised editing may not be enough to deal with the scale of the problem. I believe this gives Bharatveer the chance to show that he can edit responsibly and constructively away from the topic he revert-wars over and evidently feels so strongly about. If a year is felt too long, perhaps six months, after which the ArbCom could review the arrangement? Moreschi Talk 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence shows that Bharatveer is so involved and feels so strongly about the correctness of his POV on this topic that allowing him continued editing privileges on this topic may present too much of a temptation. On other topics, he may find it easier to be responsible. I can support this. --Dseer 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't think this will do anything different from a ban as Bharatveer has shown pretty much 'zero' interest in editing other articles.  He has, however, an incredible and passionate interest in the India articles, so I don't see this as preventing sockpuppetry any more than the full ban.  All in all, we will have to look out for socks regardless of which proposed solution is used, but I feel that out of these the full ban gives everyone less trouble.  A topic ban can be confusing because it is sometimes hard to draw the line between India-related and not-related - nobody should end up wasting time judging this matter if it comes up.    'Potential socks' + 'judging relation' is more trouble than 'potential socks' alone.  The Behnam 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose - He has made numerous contributions to this are of editing, there's no reason to support a capricious proposal like this. Baka man  17:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: