User:Hornplease/Hkelkar 2

Updated evidence about Bakasuprman
Below I reproduce and update the last evidence I presented on Bakasuprman, which was not considered during HKelkar-one.

Using the guidelines on disruptive editing, n editor is disruptive when


 * An editor is tendentious, where


 * the tendentious editing involves:
 * 1) A history of violation of 3RR; this of course is true, and does not need repeating. Admins will have better access to this history, particularly BLNguyen. (Note: I am not saying a history of being blocked. The standards of a 'revert' seem to be looser here than they should be, as BLNguyen points out above.)
 * 2) Repeated undoing of the 'vandalism' of others. Particularly valid in this editor's case. No change in an article made from a different POV is anything other than 'vandalism'. See diffs ; and on my page, which was a bit of shocker. This does not include the countless instances of edit summaries that state 'rvv' or 'stop vandalising articles' etc, and the oft repeated.
 * 3) Reminding people about WP:AGF:.
 * 4) Accusations or suspicions that other editors are "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts": in this case it takes the shape of a reworking of WP:RS. Consider ( a quick google search of the names will establish which sources are reliable);, to make it clearer;  and.
 * 5) Challenging the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it: I wish. More normally, first (marked minor) or  (ditto) and then  (marked "that was not a compromise in any way").
 * 6) Citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support the interpretation or the inferences drawn: Where, oh where, to start?, where another editor comments "the issue is not source, but interpretations of sources. several of your reverted passages have no support in given links". Those readily available at the moment include: ; ; ; ; . I lose it a little here; and am finally moved to write this. Note these are a few occasions when I have called him on it; that is a fraction of the times he has done it to me, and a smaller fraction of the times that he will have done it to articles I havent run into him on.
 * 7) Repeating the same argument over and over again: well, for just one example, the entire history of the Talk:Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia. Also User:Bakasuprman/Archive8. No pointing posting diffs. Have a look.


 * tendentious editing requires assigning undue weight to a single aspect of a subject: ; ; and many more, but I grow tired, and wish to move on.


 * tendentious editing wishes to Right Great Wrongs: Too obvious. Someone else can fill in the blanks., perhaps? Her remarks.


 * the editor ignores WP:V and WP:OR: Consider first the entire set of miscitations given above. Also, for a representative example of synthesis, see here.


 * Rejects Community Input: OK, he thinks I'm biased. But then consider, from the original writer of the category, whom he has appealed to for support. And , from someone who had agreed with him in the CfD for the cat in question. No effect whatsoever.


 * Drives away productive editors: Worked on me. I had given up on WP thanks to this guy, and did indeed go on an extended wikibreak, with a pause only for the first HK RfArb. Another editor at the receiving end, User:TwoHorned, was similarly affected. Also, note 's response above [; he couldnt get out of the discussion soon enough.


 * If required, I will detail his numerous low-level and high-level violations of WP:NPA, WP:Civil, etc. I have not mentioned a single one of those above. As everyone here is aware, there were many. It might suffice to point out that he has previously, on a Request for Arbitration workshop page, no less, declared that he thinks that WP:CIVIL is suspended on India-related pages, and that on AN/I he has declared that "civility is an ideal", and clearly one that he is happy falling far short of - indeed, not even aiming for.

Additional Remarks

 * Hkelkar has openly - on-wiki - discussed the recruitment of meatpuppets with Bakasuprman in the past:.
 * The history of the Narendra Modi page is instructive.
 * Not only has Bakasuprman reverted the addition of highly significant and notable material to the article, with the comment 'rv Hornplease sock', which is typically uninformed and insulting (it's an Indian IP!), but the subsequent actions show that Sir Nicholas jumped in after a single couple of slow-motion reverts by IPs and protected the page at Bakasuprman's preferred versions; what appeared to me to be full-, not semi-protection (I may have been wrong about this, but Nick did not address the issue). I was not aware of this, and I would not have bestirred myself much in any case, if not for an anon leaving a message on my talkpage which, while completely pointless, led me to at least investigate.
 * When I asked Nick what he thought he was doing - which I was forced to, given that there was absolutely no discussion of what the problem was -, he replied - rather tangentially - indicating that he himself had made only one recent edit - which was a revert to Baka - and also indicating that he thought any discussion of the matter was inappropriate. He also did some vague hand-waving about BLP - completely irrelevant in this case - and also decided to call the anon IP 'my friend', which, coming on the heels of Baka's accusation of puppetry, is not difficult to interpret.  . **I spend a few minutes telling Nick where he's wrong, in that he shouldnt make statements vaguely accusing people who've been beavering away for years of sockpuppetry in the complete absence of evidence, that his interpretation of facts on that particular article showed that he'd just turned up  to help Bakasuprman without actually reading what was going on, and that the 'disruption' of the article by IPs was nothing close to constant vandalism, and thus his s-protection - if it was that - was not per policy..
 * Meanwhile Baka stepped in to defend Nick; his intervention was tedious, and need not be repeated. In any case, Nick winds up the discussion to his satisfaction by indicating that he has completely missed the point about s-protection, has not engaged in the issue long enough to check what he is deleting or its relevance to the article, and, for the full $64,000, says "Friend statement? Aren't we all friends?" in response to my concern about that statement, dropping in an admonishment to me not to careful that I not annoy 'respectable' editors like Bakasuprman. This was so far removed from reality I merely paused to wonder how this chap made it through an RfA and shook the dust of that talkpage from my heels. Given Nirav's statements above, his actions and comments here take on an even more sinister light. Hornplease 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)