User talk:BostonMA/SarvagnyaMahawikiConflict

Mahawiki
Hi Boston,

In the links you gave me, and, please observe carefully. What I described as trolling was not Mahawiki's request to Tipu to calm down. If you observe carefully, in his clever request he has slipped in blatantly inflammatory troll that Karnataka is torturing minorities etc.,. That is what I referred to as trolling. Sarvagnya 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

sarvagnya
Hi, I didnt knew u have started advocating for sarvagnya?Good for u! BTW the concept of good faith/bad faith edits exists in wikipedia right?Mahawiki 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mahawiki. You are correct, there is a difference between good faith and bad faith edits.  Bad faith edits are vandalism.  In some cases, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the editor had no intention of making a useful contribution.  In other cases, it is not completely clear that an edit is made in bad faith.  In those cases, it is Wikipedia policy to Assume Good Faith, that is, we give the editor the benefit of the doubt.  This may be bad idea.  You may not agree with it, but it is Wikipedia policy.
 * I would be happy to discuss the matter with you further. --BostonMA 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri
I am shocked and flabbergasted that it has been protected!! This is the effect of Mahawiki's slander and misinformation working! This is exactly what I have been crying about for some time now.

You have been an active editor there and you tell me in all honesty, have I ever pushed POV there? I objected to the picture, gave my reasons and after more than one month of not getting any replies I deleted it and also explained my reasons(It was mainly about the "'years' of 'dam induced' drought") Once that was fixed and you wrote about river usage etc., I havent questioned the picture.

As for the other point about Karnataka not releasing water, I have proved with citations that Mahawiki's and DrBruno's claim was factually incorrect. What is Mahawiki's problems still?

As for the events of 2002, I dont have any problem mentioning it, but it should not be worded to sound as if the events of 2002 was/is the norm every year.

Also please remember that this is an article about the river Kaveri and if we keep writing about the dispute to fill pages together the article will lose its focus. Like I said, I've already created a page purely focusing on the dispute and all the details are being mentioned there. I am in the final stages of wrapping it up but this incivility of Mahawiki is holding up my work.

As a seasoned editor on WP, I request you to please let Blnguyen know that his protection of the page is uncalled for. Infact, if you see the most recent edits there is not even a semblence of edit warring there.

Thanks.

btw I will also let Blnguyen know. Sarvagnya 21:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarvagnya. What I am about to say, I hope will not be an affront to you.  When I ask others of their opinions of me, I genuinely wish to know, and so I do not take offence that they are criticizing me -- if I ask for opinion, I am happy to get it.    So please do not think I would bring up the following things if you had not asked.  When you first began editting here, I was battling one or more anonymous IPs who were removing Tamil script for places in Tamil Nadu.  At one point, you removed the Tamil script for Kaveri.  You may not be anti-Tamil, and it may not have occured to you that anyone would find your removal an issue.  However, it did make me wonder if you had an anti-Tamil agenda as I have seen others have (i.e. vandals).


 * When you first began editting Wikipedia, you also made some comments that did not leave me with a good feeling. For example, you commented on my user talk page accusing me of lying  when in fact, the "diff" that you used to support your claim was a composite of edits by a number of different editors, and the actual history didn't support your claim at all.  At the time, I realized that it was conceivable that you simply did not understand how diffs worked.  However, I also wondered if you were intentionally trying to smear me.  So, from the beginning, we did not get off to a good start.  You seem to have grown as an editor since that time, and I definitely take that into account, and I do not hold your past against you.


 * That being said, I do think that your tone is rather "superlative". You speak of "blatant" lies, being shocked, slander, misinformation etc.  In my opinion, using this sort of language may hurt your reputation among other editors.  They give the impression that you have a great deal of emotional investment in pursuing your aims.    I think that if you Assume Good Faith toward Mahawiki, despite anything that he may have said to you, and in spite of mistakes he may have made in editting, that the level of heat between you will subside.


 * I hope you will forgive me for speaking plainly. That is what I would want for myself.  I do not bear any grudges against you, and I am glad that we have been able to edit collaboratively on a number of articles.  Please feel free to share your opinions further, and I will do my best to reply.  Sincerely, --BostonMA 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thank you for and admire your forthrightness it telling it like it is. Yes, I do remember that we didnt get off to a good start.  And to this day, though I blundered in targeting you, I certainly feel that one of the intervening editors/edits(between mine and yours) was responsible.  Be that as it may, to me it is a closed chapter.  But what I learnt from that episode was not to involve myself emotionally with anything or anybody on WP.  And I have tried my best to follow that.  In the case of Belgaum, i ran the risk of deviating from that mindset and I should admit, I also did deviate a bit.  But I realised it soon and came back on track.


 * Ever since my run in with you, I have also zealously tried to discuss things on the talk page before I make edits to the article. I also try to check other articles to see if there are any precedents in making similar edits anywhere.  In the case of the tamil transliteration for Kaveri, I did check the article page of few other rivers and infact, found that there were no transliterations at all.  However in Kaveri somebody had already added both transliterations.  Since Kaveri flows through 3 states and a union territory and because one of its tributaries originates in Kerala, I reasoned that we would have to add all transliterations.  On second thoughts I felt that would end up making it messy and decided to go with just Kannada if nobody objected.  Unconsciously, I was trying to set a precedent where I thought none existed.  But once it was challenged and Sundar showed me a precedent, I gave in without any protest.


 * And also, please note that I have used words like slander, misinformation etc., only in the case of Mahawiki because that is exactly what he is doing. What else would you call it, if someone keeps crying of Vandalism on every single page he visits or edits.  Just go to Mahawiki's contribs page and do a control-F for the word "Vandal" or "Vandalism" and you will find dozens of instances in the edit summaries itself!!  If you were to dig into his actual posts, there is no count of the number of times he has accused me and dinesh of Vandalism.  Please ask him to cite even one single instance of vandalism by either me or dinesh.  His other favourite term is 'Kannadisation' which again he keeps using like nobody's business.


 *  Of course, everytime he is confronted by somebody to explain his incivility, he runs back to the Belgaum talk page. Even on the Belgaum talk page,  while I agree that there was incivility on both sides, I can assure you that I wasnt incivil in the least bit once Aksi entered the picture and more so after User:Amerique entered the picture.  However, with Mahawiki, their presence made no difference to his attitudes.  He continued to be incivil even after his own advocate had started mediating!!  It was then(almost a month ago I suppose) that I abruptly withdrew from the debate and havent ever gone back to the Belgaum talk page yet.


 * And other than this, another classic case of Mahawiki's misinformation and attempt to mislead is in the case of transliterations. It is certainly true that I have opposed the use of Devanagari transliterations on the Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana pages apart from the Belgaum page of course.  However the reason for my opposition on the VM and JGM pages on the one hand and on Belgaum page on the other hand are totally disconnected and have nothing to do with each other.  I have explained my reasons for opposing the nagari tr., on the VM and JGM(and even Sare Jahan se achcha for the matter) pages on the respective talk pages.  And infact, both user:Ragib and User:Sameerkhan were in agreement with me.  Later as the discussion progressed, a consensus was reached there in support of the nagari transliterations and I have not in the least opposed it.  But Mahawiki, very conveniently takes my opposition to nagari tr., on radically different articles and stitches them together and talks about it on all pages which have nothing to do with those articles.  This is what I see as a mischievous attempt to mislead people.


 * Even since yesterday, I am trying to insist that we focus only on incivility and not on content disputes, but all that Mahawiki can do in defence of his incivility is to cite from random content disputes from a dozen different articles!! Disagreements about the content of some article can never be used as an excuse for incivility! I am certainly not averse to discussing content issues, but I will not and cannot discuss content issues with incivil people.


 * And even with content disputes, what is it that he really contests on the pages he cites? Even on the Kaveri page, did he have a single citation of his own to provide?  Did he even have a single assertion of his own to make?  All that he was doing there was nothing but trying to inflame the atmosphere.  I am sure you would have noticed that.  His concern about Rashtrakuta, Rajkumar, Chalukya, Vijayanagar empire etc., is even more bogus.  Go and check the talk pages of those articles and on many you will find that he has not made even a single constructive edit on the talk page!!  If he has any problems with the article, he should take it up on the talk page of the article.  Why is he talking about it everywhere else except on the talk pages of the articles?!  I know we must AGF, but I am of the firm opinion that Aing GF in such cases, will only render WP much poorer.


 * And once again, like I said, content disputes and incivility shouldnt mix. Incivility, especially when it is as frequent and routine as in Mahawiki's case is inexcusable.  Of course, everyone is human and it is human to lose your temper sometimes, but you cant make a habit out of it and expect to get away with it!!  I have just given examples of his incivility in the last 15 days, if I go back a month or so, his incivility could fill a whole page!


 * Thanks once again, for your frank opinions and hope you continue to give me your opinions on issues from time to time.
 * Sarvagnya 22:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalism:Saw your comments on Mahawiki's page. Just would like to add a bit.  As far as his wanton usage of the term 'Vandalism' or even 'Kannadi Vandalism' goes, even Admin:Blnguyen, took note of it and adviced/warned him against it.  Even since that, there has been no change in his deliberate and gratuitious use of the term.  Apart from vandalism, both he and Arya have in extremely bad taste rechristened Dinesh Kannambadi as 'kannadibadi' in all their posts.  Just go to their talk pages and do a control-F for 'kannadibadi'(sic) and you will see.  They have even referred to him like that on talk pages of articles(if I am not mistaken).  Then ofcourse, we have the long standing 'Kannadi' issue, which he still argues(see Bhadani's talk page) about, but none of the other editors are happy with his explanations.  Sarvagnya 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarvagnya. I very much appreciate your comments above.  I have left a note on Mahawiki's talk page regarding the use of the term vandalism.
 * I am about to take some rest, so I cannot acknowledge all the points you have discussed at the moment. There is one thing, however, that I would like to explore.   Let us assume that Mahawiki has been behaving inappropriately.  I know it is natural to be annoyed by inappropriate behavior.  But it also sometimes best to just calmly make a note of the behavior, and then let the issue lie dormant.  I guess what I am wondering is why be so eager to have admins crack down on incivility by Mahawiki?  Why not just archive his comments, together with a note of your own view of the facts, and then just leave it at that for now?  What would you lose by letting another editor's incivility just drop away from you?  I am very tired, so I will not continue.  But I look forward to hearing from you again.  Sincerely, --BostonMA 00:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Boston, I can assure you that I did infact, make a conscious attempt to ignore his incivility. But to my dismay, I saw that his incivility was only growing with each passing day.  That both Admin:Blnguyen and Admin:Sundar were indisposed in my view, only encouraged him to start trying to stretch his luck.  With each passing day, his incivility was becoming more and more brazen.  Emboldened by the fact that he wasnt being pulled up for civility, he started blatantly indulging in frivoulous edit wars - like the one in the Kaveri page.  Apart from Kaveri, he and Arya have blatantly even removed {[fact}} tags that I had added in a couple of articles without any explanations whatsoever.  And as for me being eager that admins crack a whip on him, it is not like that.  All I want is the knowledge that there are admins keeping a tab on his behaviour.  It is not like I want him permanently or even temporarily blocked.  All I want is an immediate end to his vitriol and an assurance from an admin that he wont slip back to his incivil ways and if he does, they will take the necessary action to bring him to book.  This is all that I care for.
 * And as I had predicted, he has inevitably run back to the Belgaum issue. That was probably two months ago and like I said there was incivility on both sides.  Most importantly, admins pulled up everyone involved, warned everyone for that and when Mahawiki tried to resist, Blnguyen blocked him.  That issue has been dealt with and is a dead issue(as far as the question of incivility is concerned, though not the 'content issue' which has been lying dormant).  Sarvagnya 06:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri article
If u wish me to discontinue at Kaveri,I will.I used the word Kannadi vandalism because another kannadi fanatic had used 'Martty vandalism'.If u want to get the premise of my and sarvagnya's dispute plz see Belgaon page.Sarvagnya is teklling a lie when he says I was being incivil after mediators arrived.I gave my citations and mediators gave a decision in my favour.They agreed for Marathi transliteration!He did a disappering act after that!This hurt Sarvagnya's ego and after the incident he is busy wooing eveyone to block me!In fact he has problems with all language transliterations!Ne it on Kaveri, Belgaon, VM or JNM.

Anyways I leave Kaveri article but make sure u dont allow pushing of POV like this.Note that I havent added a single sentence I had just reverted Sarvagnya's adverbs about Karntaka's stand.I hope u will take care of Kaveri article.Plz leave a reply at my page. Mahawiki 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri Pic
Just FYI :. You're welcome to comment. Thanks. Sarvagnya 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri Disputes article
Hi, After a long time, I have completed the Kaveri_River_Water_Dispute article in some shape and form. Most importantly, I've added some refs. Can you please take a look at the article and let me know if there are any glaring POV or anything that has the potential to be seen as POV. If you find anything, please let me know and I will add refs. Also the refs I've already added need some cleanup. Can you help me with this. I only know to add refs the 'plain vanilla' way. Also, while I've added refs for most of the controversial or potentially controversial portions, some parts of the article is still unreferenced. I will add it in due course. For all the above reasons, I've still left the underconstruction tag on. Once I get feedback from you, I'll remove it. I'll also make this request to few other editors, so that we minimise any risk of edit warring on that article. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)