Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Goingoveredge

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~ ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
Wikipedia editors are requested for comment and help save wikipedia articles from the "edit wars" of user: Goingoveredge (also see: user_talk:Goingoveredge as used keeps deleting any message by me on his talkpage).

Desired outcome
I feel that user: Goingoveredge deserves to be banned because he his stubbornly reverting and deleting information without appropriate discussion.

Description
This user is deleting any verifiable information that goes against his wishful thinking and POV. user: Goingoveredge is stubbornly pushing on and deleting any comment on his user page for discussion calling fellow good faith editors as "trolls" to avoid any discussions. He called the author of a book "Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity" by names in the following edit -"Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity written by US Army Colonel G. B. Singh and an advocate of Khalistani secessionism in India" accusing the author Col G. B. Singh of something which has no evidence what-so-ever. He not only called the author of the book "extermist" and "bigot" but continuously kept calling other good faith editors as "terrorists", "bombers", "extremists", "bigots", "racists" and what not. See here, edit summary, and here.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * The evidence below of trying to resolve conflicts and evidences of failing to resolve is expected to give enough evidence of the disputed behavior of this editor.
 * Also, this editors "edit log" and his "non-constructive" edit summaries combined with his stubborn behavior of edit warring without discussing should provide more evidence.
 * The user continues unabated, now he started deleting fellow good faith editor's responses from article talk pages as well. Please see Here Still, if its unclear to admins, please leave a message here and more information can be provided.
 * This editor is continuing damaging activities unabated please see his contribution log where he is continually deleting user responses from the discussion page of the article. It will be appreciated if any Wikipedia Admin can pay attention on this RFC.
 * Now user: Goingoveredge has begun following my edits everywhere on wikipedia and making every page "an edit" war. He never has any reasonable discussion and fails to respond appropriately via talkpages. Instead he is just keeping on reverting to suit his agenda. See his contribution on article Mair Rajputs as well. --Roadahead (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This user still continues to put his talk on the talk-pages but deleting anybody who replies to his views, see [here]. Is wikipedia, Goingoveredge's personal diary with sole viewing expressing rights reserved with him only? He smartly uses wikipedia "keywords" to hide his activities from Wikipedia Admins. Did somebody pay attention to the application of his comments and tags? Moreover, did somebody see that he is himself violating civility many times in his comments and discussions? --Roadahead (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another unwarranted personal attack on me; calling me "hatemonger", "khalistani" (don't know what he means by this), "genocide inciter". See his edit summary [HERE] and [HERE]
 * After several warnings by several admins, he still continues personal attacks via "edit summary" HERE. --Road Ahead  Discuss 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected of Sockpuppet as well
Another editor Googlean has expressed concern that Goingoveredge is a suspected sockpuppet of 3 and 4 below. See his report [Here}. [[user:Roadahead|Roadahead]] had expressed concern that 1 and 2 below are also sockpuppets of the same user.
 * 1) user:Minoratm evidence []
 * 2) user:Whilenneq10 evidence []
 * 3) user:Tripping Nambiar evidence []
 * 4) user:Mightyrahul evidence []

Applicable policies and guidelines
It is felt that this editor is:
 * continually violating WP:Civility by deleting messages left on his talkpage to arrive at consensus and involving in name calling.
 * violating WP:No Original Research by pushing his own thinking on the articles Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity and Kaffir_(ethnic_slur)
 * involving in WP:EW by deleting messages left on his talkpage, not responding appropriately and constructively and deleting information without allowing any discussion to take place.
 * violating Verifiability by first deleting well cited and verifiable information and then adding non verifiable name calling like "Khalistani" and "secessionist" [Here. Later, he continued to push to support this activity by edit warring with no constructive discussion.
 * violated NPOV by pushing is POV and belittling other views.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Diff-1] He deleted message left on his talkpage and did not respond.
 * Diff-2] He again deletes the message left on talkpage and does not respond by continues pushing he POV by edit-wars.
 * Here, this user is avoiding any constructive discussion and instead calling names to fellow good faith editors. Calling them "Indophobic", "bombers" (terrorists), "Khalistani"
 * Here he calls book reviewers Senator Edolphus Towns, Professor Manfred Steges, Alan Cruba from bookreviews.com and Dr. Baldev Singh whose reviews does not suit his POV as "propangandistic", "nonentities", and "militant autodidacts" to belittle and discredit their reviews. It should be noted Senator Edolphus Towns read and recommended the book to other senators to read and get the perspective on Gandhi to know the real Gandhi. Professor Manfred Steges wrote another book in which he reviews the book in question and finds that the second part of this book presents and proves facts very well. Alan Cruba his from the very well known www.bookreviews.com and Dr. Baldev Singh is a frequent writer on Indian Politics and Sikh history with several articles and papers to his credit.
 * This user was requested to not to delete other editors responses from the talkpages of article, but he continued again deleting other users responses Here after he deleted the message given to him Here

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
 * Here] he was warned by a wikipedia admin for deleting good faith messages from his talkpage and calling them "trolls" but he did not even listen to the admin and deleted the a later message again here
 * Here he warned by Admin for his inappropriate behavior and name calling, but he still continued it here and elsewhere.
 * Here
 * Here
 * ] Undoing the responses made on the discussion board.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * User:Goingoveredge is vandalizing the article by suppressing the contents of book for his own POV bias. As Noted above he is undoing my responses to him on the discussion board. Along with that he is stalking my other posting on Sikh history and disruptively editing them without any discussion. This is definitely an attitude of propaganda that aims to silence others. I endorse this statement. Princhest 31 August 2008 18:16 (UTC) &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;
 * I user: Roadahead certify the basis for this dispute. The user: Goingoveredge is acting very stubbornly and uncivil way refusing any constructive discussion and continually circumventing wikipedia policies. --Roadahead (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

I won't respond to any of this childish nonsense beyond showing some diffs by utcursch that summarizing the behavior of the Khalistani trolls who started this waste of time ( a related "RfC" is of a long-established admin Requests for comment/Utcursch).

 Your basis of filing the RfC is pretty childish. You also know you're wrong when you say "Utcursch comes in and threatens other editors of banning here while selectively neglecting user: Goingoveredge". This is nowhere close to a 'threat' -- and the first bullet point is meant for User:Goingoveredge.

The changes made by Princhest (later restored by you) to Guru Arjan Dev involved removal of four cite book templates, and constituted copyright violation. The content added was copied from another site, with a few words changed here and there. This can be confirmed by Googling random phrases:"political necessity was forced to uphold Islamic Puritanism of Naqashbandi revivalists","and Akbar’s forgiving his errant son and proclaiming him heir-apparent", "the Hindu position was listless except that they would hobnob","Khusrau’s indiscreet revolt against his father on April 6, 1606 and his hurrying". Interestingly, it's amusing to note how you guys selectively copied the content that suited your point-of-view, and conveniently omitted concluding paras of the Sikh Spectrum article: "Guru Arjun's martyrdom, the first of its kind in the history of Hindustan, the sub-continent, caused great resentment and indignation among the general body of Hindus and Muslims, apart from the Sikhs. One tends to agree with Ganda Singh that: 'Much of the Chandu-story was given currency, in those very days to shift the responsibility of tortures inflicted on the Guru from the Mughal Officials to the Kafirs. Chandu was only a minor official at Lahore, and hostile to the Sikh Panth (nation). The fact that you editors are using "We're Sikh, so we're being harassed" argument says a lot about your hollow accusations. You or Princhest hardly ever edit Sikhism-related articles -- almost all of your noteworthy edits are related to Gandhi. Your userpages don't mention that you're Sikh. But as soon as you find someone who disagrees with you, you raise "They're Hindu propagandists" bogey.



I'm a busy person in real life, and I don't have much energy or time to waste over such childish disputes. Please see Resolving disputes. I've already wasted my Saturday fixing articles on Sikh Rajputs, Kaffir, Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity etc., and I don't wish to waste more time over these

and finally, wikipedia shouldn't waste it's time over childish RfC's filed by revisionist troll with no regard for neutrality, factual representation or scholarly consensus.Goingoveredge (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Update. Apparently I'm not the only one who observed User:Roadahead to be a Single purpose account Khalistani troll.
 * From User:KNM Goingoveredge (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

User:Roadahead is now attempting to Vandalize, delete, censor or history-rewrite the article on Sikh Rajputs. He attempted to delete the article within 5 days with the Tag, has now censored all the information that Khalsa Sikhs were raised from Hindu families to protect Hindus and Sikhs from Mughals of the time and Islamic invaders who seeked to convert all to Islam by force.

His agenda is very clear he is a Single purpose account Khalistani troll. Kindly track him and his edits.

Atulsnischal (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

View of Beetle CT
Goingoveredge is ruthlessly vandalizing several other articles while rudely avoiding all pleas to participate in the discussions.

Evidence of my try to resolve the dispute: - between two wiki users:

I started discussion “Distortion of this Article by User: Tripping Nambiar”.

Evidence of Goingoveredge's refusal to resolve the dispute:

Goingoveredge jumped in and kept distorting article Khalistan movement and he never participated in the discussion (mentioned above):
 * Proof 1
 * Proof 2

This is definitely an attitude of silencing other wikipedia editors. Goingoveredge do not care for any Wiki rules, normal ethics, he has even deleted other editor's requests/complaints from his own talk page in an effort to hide his acts from the greater Wikipedia community. He was even blocked once by respected Wikipedia Administrator User talk:J.smith for his acts.

I indorse the request to "Block" Goingoveredge permanently.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Beetle CT (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I indorse. --Singh6 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by PhilKnight
Comments such as this:
 * you can't bomb wikipedia as easily as you did Air India Flight 182 (20:37, 29 August 2008)

are uncivil. However, removing comments from your own talk page is considered acceptable.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) PhilKnight (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed, it could also fall under other forms of more problematic conduct, including using Wikipedia as a battleground, and of course, making personal attacks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

Conclusion
After reading through the RfC, I have come to the following conclusion: Both parties involved (Roadahead and Goingoveredge) are warned not to edit war, and based on both the contrib log and block log, I ask that if edit warring continues between them that an indef block be used. I also warn Goingoveredge not to make personal attacks and incivil remarks (warned not to go over edge, if you will), further ones of which will result in a block. Wizardman 14:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note. I think this user is now banned indefinitely here. I'm surprised to see the never ending list of sockpuppet accounts that he was using. Regards, --Road Ahead  Discuss 22:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)