Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

message: === Statement by Bakasuprman ===
Moreschi has already been criticized for poor admin judgment for an illegitimate block of myself in June, undone with the support of legitimate admins in the community. The real issue is that he is irreconcilably biased against the political viewpoint he supposed Bharatveer to espouse. The fact that no RFC/mediation has been brought is another signal that this is a witchhuny against bharatveer. I urge arbcom to reject this case.
:I think blnguyen should stay on the case, and that moreschi's request is rather spiteful. Moreschi's admin judgment is clouded and his assertion that an elected arbitrator (who received over 80% community support at last count) is somehow compromised by bias is disgraceful. Blnguyen has blocked users when he saw fit and unblocked when he saw fit.Bakaman 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you who have been in content dispute with BV is "uninvolved" while I who have not are "involved"? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blnguyen, Ragib is listed in the "involved parties." :) GizzaDiscuss © 08:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is quite surprising, given that Blnguyen himself added my name there. Given that I've been virtually out of enwiki with less than 100 edis in the last 30 days, this is quite interesting. Whatever twisted logic (not to mention conflict of interest) Blnguyen applied here, I do not consider myself an involved party here and neither does Moreschi in his original complaint. But this also shows yet again why Blnguyen should recuse himself from this case. By the way, I won't be checking back so please email me if anyone wants to drop me a note about this. Thanks. --Ragib 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not an arbitrator. So, it doesn't matter if I had prior content dispute with BV. I'm not directly involved in the current issue with Moreschi, so I don't consider myself an involved party. Hypothetically, had I been an arbitrator myself, THEN my being a judge would definitely be a conflict of interest, considering prior edit-related disagreements. Thanks. --Ragib 05:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional statements before the case was accepted

message: Moreschi has already been criticized for poor admin judgment for an illegitimate block of myself in June, undone with the support of legitimate admins in the community. The real issue is that he is irreconcilably biased against the political viewpoint he supposed Bharatveer to espouse. The fact that no RFC/mediation has been brought is another signal that this is a witchhuny against bharatveer. I urge arbcom to reject this case.
:I think blnguyen should stay on the case, and that moreschi's request is rather spiteful. Moreschi's admin judgment is clouded and his assertion that an elected arbitrator (who received over 80% community support at last count) is somehow compromised by bias is disgraceful. Blnguyen has blocked users when he saw fit and unblocked when he saw fit.Bakaman 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Bakasuprman 

message: I've only run into Bharatveer at the Out of India page, where he revert warred a whitewashed version of page several times.  In no way did he participate in the talk page discussion, and some of his edit summaries were rather offensive.  For example, in response to a revert by myself or others with a summary like 'rv - whitewashing', Bharatveer would undo this with 'rv - "white" washing'.  I really don't appreciate such racial remarks, especially when applied without justification to reverts we made in good faith (to prevent whitewashing of a fringe theory).  The actual content dispute aside, bringing 'race' into the equation when it shouldn't matter is very detrimental to the collaborative process.
If this is the way Bharatveer regularly acts throughout Wikipedia, as Moreschi's evidence suggests, then I agree that it is high time for his conduct to addressed in a binding & authoritative investigation by the ArbCom.  Regards,  The Behnam 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by The Behnam 

message: I ran into Bharatveer's unexplained revert spree in many articles. Most of the time, he only reverts with a summary like "rv", "rv to previous version" etc, without bothering to discuss anything in the article talk pages. Over the last two years, he has consistently continued this. Cleverly evading 3RR blocks by making 2 or 3 reverts per day, he has disrupted many articles including Jagadish Chandra Bose (where he demands links to the article Republic of India despite the fact India didn't exist as a nation back then), Rabindranath Tagore etc. 
Since this is a behavior pattern, and not an isolated incident, I'd request the arbitrators (sans blnguyen) to take a look into this for the sake of Wikipedia. --Ragib 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you who have been in content dispute with BV is "uninvolved" while I who have not are "involved"? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blnguyen, Ragib is listed in the "involved parties." :) GizzaDiscuss © 08:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is quite surprising, given that Blnguyen himself added my name there. Given that I've been virtually out of enwiki with less than 100 edis in the last 30 days, this is quite interesting. Whatever twisted logic (not to mention conflict of interest) Blnguyen applied here, I do not consider myself an involved party here and neither does Moreschi in his original complaint. But this also shows yet again why Blnguyen should recuse himself from this case. By the way, I won't be checking back so please email me if anyone wants to drop me a note about this. Thanks. --Ragib 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not an arbitrator. So, it doesn't matter if I had prior content dispute with BV. I'm not directly involved in the current issue with Moreschi, so I don't consider myself an involved party. Hypothetically, had I been an arbitrator myself, THEN my being a judge would definitely be a conflict of interest, considering prior edit-related disagreements. Thanks. --Ragib 05:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Ragib