User:Ian.thomson/Shrikanthv

Statement of the Dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.''

Cause of concern
Shrikanthv has been trying to censor the Upanishads article to remove any criticism of the work. He has been accusing others of malice, disputing the reliability of apparently good sources, providing inadequare citations, repeating the same arguments without convincing people, repeating the same arguments without convincing people, ignoring good faith questions from other editors, assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject, and generally trying to "right great wrongs."

Highlights of his behavior include:


 * Here Shrikanthv removes large portions of the criticism section, gives it the POV relabel "misunderstanding," and counters the remaining material with weak citations to Sri Aurobindo, 1996 "The upanishads" Lotus Press. He also tries to downplay the role of their authors, as if the texts were immortal works which were only copied by their claimed authors.


 * Later, he just outright censors all criticism.


 * Here he takes fairly current summaries of historians' conclusions on the matter, and makes it past tense, as though those views have been countered (without actually presenting any such counter).


 * After I reverted his attempts to push a Hindu fundamentalist POV on the article, he engages in drive-by tagging without explaining why, before later claiming that the sources in the article do not match the information present. Later, he admits that the sources do go along with the information presented (i.e. that the authors cited who criticized the Upanishads did criticize the Upanishads), and never addresses that false edit summary.


 * He later tried to dismiss the authors cited in the criticism section here, here, and here on the basis that they are not Indian Hindus. First he claims that the sources cited (those authors) do not support the information presented (that those authors criticized the Upanishads), but then he admits that they did criticize the Upanishads but that he does not think their views should be included because they are not Indian Hindus.


 * Here he questions my reversion not on whether or not they match the sources, nor on the quality of the sources, nor on whether they are sources, but on whether or not I've studied the Upanishads or "ever had make any sence of it", as if this site cares more about Sunday school style indoctrination than summarizing what sources have to say on the subject.


 * Here he gives undue weight to the views of Advaitist philosopher Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, with selections that only serve to mystify the works and weaken the rest of the criticism section. He presents Radhakrishnan's views as universal facts instead of Radhakrishnan's personal claims.


 * Here and here Shrikanthv again claims that the sources in the criticism section do not support the material in the criticism section. This time, he claims that one citation was not by the cited author but the cited book's editor (which he never accepts, no matter how it is explained), and that the pages given in the citations do not contain the info in the article.  I dug up the PDF, went through a few of citations, and could only conclude that he was looking at the PDF's page number instead of the book's page number.  He ignored this and still keeps expecting other editors to fall for this claim.


 * I later merged his additions in the Criticism section with more appropriate locations, only removing one bad citation and properly attributing Radhakrishnan's views to Radhakrishnan. Here and here he claims that I deleted the material, which is completely false.  When I point out that I did not do that, continues to insist that I did, and goes on to claim that because he's not trying to sell anything, he isn't POV-pushing.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct Additionally, either WP:CIR (doing my damndest to assume good faith), otherwise WP:CIVIL. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:TEND (especially WP:IDHT),
 * WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE),
 * WP:NOTCENSORED,
 * WP:RS.

Desired outcome
''This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.''

While I understand that RFC/U cannot enforce topic bans, I do not see Shrikanthv being useful for the criticism section of the Upanishads article, and his constant inaccurate philibustering about the sources in it do not help either. Other material he added, when properly attributed, was acceptable in other sections.

I would suggest that Shrikanthv be required to find approval for any suggested edit to the criticism section on the article's talk page before editing it (except in cases of clear cut vandalism), and that he be limited to only discussing material added into the criticism section after today. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Jojalozzo has contacted Shrikanthv about his behavior, as have I explaining WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc, to no avail. I believe part of the reason he does not stop is that Jojalozzo has been more kind in his attempt to correct Shrikanthv, and only one other editor has interacted with him on the matter, who Shrikanthv dismissed because he didn't support Shrikanthv's article RFC. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute
 * 1. As in the above sections, I've tried to get him to address his behavior, explaining WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc., to no avail.
 * 2. I am not an editor in the Upanishads article and have not followed all the points of contention listed above. My main interaction with Shrikanthv was in unrelated disputes involving commercial promotion, legal threat and sock puppetry that occurred in his/her first days as an editor. I have advised Shrikanthv several times  to become more familiar with policy and guidelines and to ask more questions rather than push ahead with his/her point of view and personal agenda. While this has not resolved the problems s/he is having, I have seen changes in behavior as s/he has begun to learn Wikipedia culture and basic assumptions (as encoded in policy). I think that English is not this user's first language and that is likely interfering with his/her comprehension of policy and article content and his/her ability to participate in clear discussion, as well as creating a level of frustration that understandably arises when his/her point of view is not getting across and others' responses are not understood confidently.  Joja  lozzo  02:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
 * 1.

Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Additional views
''This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.''

Proposed solutions
Comment- Vastly increasing participation by editors from non-Western cultures and countries where English is not the first (or even second) language is a primary goal of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is driving a plan to be implemented over the next four years (by the end of 2015). Handling this at the editorial and administrative level has been left, appropriately, to the editorial community and we need to get good at it &mdash; fast. Users like Shrikathv offer opportunities to develop administrative and educational strategies to help us respond to this shift in editorial demographics in a manner that realizes the desired benefits but still protects the quality of the encyclopedia. I hope we can proceed with that perspective. Joja lozzo  02:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to use talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.