Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bharatveer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bharatveer}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.


Bharatveer[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 11:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


  • Supporting evidence:

Bharatveer has a very long disruptive and POV pushing history on Hindutava and Anti-Christian articles. He just came out of an year long editing restriction after this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer. He was blocked several times during this period and ALSO NOW. He is currently under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_amend_Bharatveer_case . Today I happened to see this POV edit by an IP ( an article on which Bharatveer was 'active') removing references to reliable sources like Press Trust of India and Rediff.com and adding references to dailypioneer.com by 76.184.222.189 (talk · contribs) . An investigation led me to Chandan Mitra who is the the owner of the newspaper/website and also a BJP ( a pro-hindutva party) MP , which makes it evident why the paper is baised. With Bharatveer himself interested in Chandan Mitra and Bharatveer username currently blocked, It will be interesting to see a CU who was editing as 76.184.222.189 (talk · contribs) . This editing pattern is similar to that of Bharatveer
eg: in Religious violence in Orissa. Diff]: He injects POV news from unreliable sources like odishatoday.com and removed references to India's top new channels like ndtv.com . Some of the articles there people are interested in are


User:Bharatveer seems to take over the POV Pushing where a permanently banned editor User:Jobxavier left. See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier . Other suspected socks with similar editing behaviour also mentioned. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: IP ranges:
  • 116.68.64.0 - 116.68.127.255 = 116.68.64.0/18
  • 59.88.0.0 - 59.99.255.255 is too big to rangeblock entirely. -- lucasbfr talk 17:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Additional information needed. I see grounds for a check on the IPs mentioned above, but nothing for the accounts. Looks like fishing to me; you lumped together everyone against your POV, claiming that they're all one person. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishkid, with due respect to you, let me ask for, if you can provide me any edit in articles whether I have pushed any kind of POV , what so ever. Please AGF in my request. It is slightly dissappointing that such as respected admin to accuse me of a POV pusher without verifying the facts.The POV pushing by the above accounts was reverted not only be me but many other users and adminstrators. What I always do is that things in WP should be represented in a far, reliable and verifable manner. Is it wrong to object any addition of POV pushing which is non verifiable and non reliable. I would object same way if the above articles are sourced / references to any church or christian websites becoz they are will tend to be biased. Bharatveer is a proven disruptive and POV pusher (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer ) and it was an UNinvolved admin who are raised this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_amend_Bharatveer_case . Jobxavier is a proven POV pusher and sock puppeter and was banned permanently.See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier . Many of the IP socks of jobx was tagged by admins and still trolling the above pages with newer and newer IP socks everyday. Bharatveer had 'taken over' when jobxavier left. It is not rock science to see the very similar editing pattern with Tripping_Nambiar and Bakasuprman , you need to just inspect the history of the above pages. While Bharatveer was blocked , 76.184.222.189 (talk · contribs · count) came up with similar edits to unreliable sites. Why does these people doesnt find "what they want" in the mainstream newspapers and sources ? Bharatveer blocked >76.184.222.189 > odishatoday > the pioneer > pioneer owned by pro-hindutava MP > Bharatveer interested in the MPs article , dont you see a connected loop. It is interesting to see newer account like Pk1122 and Pectore coming out and no where and supporting Bharatveer. If not me , kindly inform the CU results to the Artbitation amentment requested admin and other artbitors to help them in the case, if you think that is fair ?. Thatz all I want to say -- Tinu Cherian - 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's been in the trenches, so to speak, the POV pushed by these editors is not as unique as you may think. I can understand your concerns regarding Bharatveer and Jobxavier, but I find your evidence flimsy. Many checks have been run (I myself blocked a few dozen Job socks) on Jobxavier, and if there had been a connection to Bharatveer, don't you think we would have revealed that earlier? Besides, Bharatveer has a generalized Hindutva POV, while Jobxavier had a strictly-speaking anti-Christian POV. As for Tripping Nambiar and the others, I would like to see some evidence of sockpuppetry (diffs, behaviors, etc.). There are a number of editors who can be characterized as having a pro-Hindu POV, so you'll have to give us some more information before we can consider this request. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasnt no question asked for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier which was raised by Bharatveer himself to 'track down ' Pro christian ' editors, with Bharatveer only saying "Please see article Religious violence in Orissa. A group of editors led by User:Recordfreenow and others have tried to push their POVs in an organised manner. Please see

Unfortunately for Bharatveer it was socks of Jobxavier, a blatently anti christian editor and lots of his socks were revealed . The only blunder that Jobxavier did was he used one id User:Innocent editor which should like a pro-xian editor and it was socks of Jobx that were revealed.

I have given much better substantial evidences above but my case is accused of fishing.It is so evident that Bharatveer, 76.184.222.189, Ezhava,PK1122 was highly related. Trips was himself blocked by you for edit warring on Caste system among Indian Christians. I am sorry Nish but I cannot assume good faith here :( . The RFCU is very important for the Bharatveer arbitation , either to clear his name or prove his socks. -- Tinu Cherian - 08:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I handled the Jobxavier CU hours before Bharatveer filed the request. If you wanted a CU here, then you should have limited the request to the accounts you have evidence for. Bharatveer is Red X Unrelated to 76.184.222.189, Pectore or Pk1122 (conclusion for last two determined from my previous CheckUser data I had on these users). The 116.68.xx.xx and 59.93.xx.xx IPs are all Jobxavier. No evidence of sockpuppetry provided for other users, so no check is performed there. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nish , in good faith , I assume that you have checked and verified that Bharatveer != 76.184.222.189, Pectore or Pk1122, Ezhava , Babbybulldog !=Jobxavier atleast from the IP ranges perspective. Atleast for curiosity I hope you must have checked Bharatveer != Tripping_Nambiar  != Bakasuprman != Jobxavier . FYI, I dont fish for CU for POV and ask for CU queires after reasonable evidences and investigation.

  1. Tarun_Tejpal_(journalist)
  2. Tamil_people
  3. Swami_Vivekananda
  4. Swami_Lakshmanananda
  5. Subhas_Chandra_Bose
  6. Sathya_Sai_Baba
  7. Religious_violence_in_Orissa
  8. Murder_of_Swami_Lakshmanananda
  9. M._G._Ramachandran
  10. Jagmohan
  11. Jagadish_Chandra_Bose
  12. Hindu_Munnani
  13. Heinrich_Himmler
  14. Charaka
  15. Bajrang_Dal
  16. Arundhati_Roy
  17. Aroup_Chatterjee
  18. Amitabh_Bachchan
  19. Abhishek_Bachchan

The above is the short list of articles which both Bharatveer and Pectore have co-edited. And with Pectore the only person speaking behalf of Bharatveer in the RFAR , my doubts might be genuine. Nevertheless my intuitions say that many of the above users are related on or off wiki. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 05:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatveer wasn't checked against Tripping Nambiar, Bakasupraman or Babbybulldog, since no evidence (I requested diffs) of sockpuppetry was provided. As mentioned above, Bharatveer is Red X Unrelated to Pectore. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tinu, stop trolling. I have no relation to Bharatveer at all.Pectoretalk 02:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bharatveer&oldid=1080978234"