Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-18 Edits by Netaji and Bakaspuprman on India related pages

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Gujarat Riots, Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi pages
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	TerryJ-Ho
Parties involved	TerryJ-Ho, Subhash Bose, Bakasuprman, Blnguyen, Hornplease,other users on these pages - in general all wikipedians who have been affected by their edits on different pages
Mediator(s)	Cowman109 (talk · contribs)
Comment	Doesn't appear to be a medcab case, referring to ANI or arbcom..

Mediation Case: 2006-08-18 Edits by Netaji and Bakaspuprman on India related pages

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: TerryJ-Ho 11:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: ...Gujarat Riots, Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi pages as well as Californian Textbook controversy

Who's involved?: ...Netaji,Bakasuprman and other editors affected by their edits

What's going on?: ...These two editors are members/supporters of Hindu Right wing movement in India.Their edits are consistent POV pushing with the aim of distorting the truth conveyed in the world media.They use dubious sources to justify their claims,remove the paragraphs that are critical of these organisations or shorten them removing the relevant bits.Their version of history is a very different one to the one generally accepted all over the world and based on the Superiority of ancient Hindu India over other civilisations.Their activity on Wikipedia seems as if they are active 24 hours of the day and are full time paid contributors from these organisations or otherwise too deeply involved with a personal opinion.

They dont accept references from independent organisations and only provide references from Hindu organisations.They have frequently been blocked and warned of uncivility - and it appears now the admins have got used to their ways.Their POV pushing is disturbing the neutrality and civility of the other editors and in general dissuading other neutral observers on contributing.

What would you like to change about that?: ...Remove their POV pushing and banning of these editors from further edits on these articles

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: ...email: sarkozy@rediffmail.com

Mediator response

The Mediation Cabal is an informal process, and as such cannot impose blocks or bans on editors for POV pushing. If they indeed are unwilling to compromise, however, you may want to make a request on WP:ANI requesting administrator involvement in this issue, or if a revert war is occuring on the article, you can go to WP:RFP and request for protection. Should the issue escalate further, you may want to try arbitration, as that process can indeed impose blocks and bans on users, but know that it is a final resort and generally does not end up well (since people are punished through arbcom, not necessarily helped). Is that alright? Cowman109^Talk 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing the case as the Mediation Cabal cannot do anything about this issue for the reason I stated above. I would recommend getting opinions from administrators about the matter at WP:ANI, but the Mediation Cabal cannot punish or impose sanctions on users. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 03:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Many of these users are engaged in editing the article 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision based on a proposal for informal mediation User:Bcorr made at Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#Proposal for informal mediation from Bcorr

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

TerryJ ho has called Hindu users "fascists" [1], [2] on an admin's talk page and has publicly insulted Hinduism. He also has called myself and Netaji "Hindu taliban" [3]. He also made false accusations of myself and Netaji of being "anti-white" here: [4].

He violated WP:BLP here [5] by defaming scholar Daniel Pipes.

In the Gujarat revision article he has resorted to baiting [6].

He also insulted an admin on his own talk page here [7] and [8].

This attack is a dastardly attempt of getting users who do not subscribe to his POV out of the way. 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Note - TerryJHo has violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL many times against Subhash_bose and Bakasuprman.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - TerryJHo is not a neutral user. If he calls Hindus fascists then its quite obvious he has a POV as do all the users on his side of the debate. The only neutral user I have met in these disputes is the administrator (Bcorr) who has bravely created an arena for discussion. I have corresponded in a respectful way with the only "neutral" user in this dispute (Bcorr).Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See responses on my Talk page TerryJ-Ho