Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KapilTagore

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, 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, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~ . If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (KapilTagore | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

KapilTagore makes crude, vicious, and foul-mouthed personal attacks on other editors with whom he has disagreements. He trumpets his political beliefs across Talk pages and in edit summaries and engages in futile revert wars.

Description
KapilTagore has been contributing to Wikipedia since December 2004, and as of May 17 has made 328 edits. When trying to convince others of his point of view, he insults and denigrates them rather than taking the time to convince with the quality of his arguments and soundness of his research. The virulent hostility he shows towards ideological opponents is incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative environment. If he is to become a valued member of this diverse community, KapilTagore urgently needs to learn how consensus-building works and to show maturity and restraint when dealing with people who don't share his beliefs. Although he indicates on his user page he is a native English speaker, the provocative and puerile manner in which he uses vulgar language suggests a woeful lack of cultural sensitivity. Referring to Fidel Castro as a "cocksucker" on the Talk page does not contribute to achieving NPOV in that article.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)

3RR violation
1. :


 * 1st revert: 23:37, 15 May 2005
 * 2nd revert: 08:16, 16 May 2005
 * 3rd revert: 09:36, 16 May 2005
 * 4th revert: 09:50, 16 May 2005
 * 5th revert: 10:02, 16 May 2005

Reported by: Mark1 03:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * User was warned on talk page. Also please revert to the last version before his, as I'm already up to 3 reverts trying to deal with this. Mark1 03:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocked KapilTagore for 24 hours, his last revet seemed to be for the spole purpose of getting himself and Mark blocked--nixie 03:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Incivility and POV pushing

 * Fidel Castro - 03:01, 20 Apr 2005: "Reverted deletion by commie idiot, added some corrections (Fidel Castro is an effective dictator)"
 * User_talk:Fibonacci - 03:03, 20 Apr 2005: "I study at the Universidad de los Andes, you moronic cuntsucker. Leave it the fuck alone. There's Universidad de los Andes everywhere. Kapil"
 * Fidel Castro - 17:21, 20 Apr 2005 Edit summary: "Castro is a dictator, worth 500 million"
 * Bolivarian Revolution - 03:48, 21 Apr 2005 Edit summary: "Removed some commie garbage"
 * Angola - 20:35, 21 Apr 2005 Edit summary: "Reverted deletion by commie moron"
 * Cuba - 02:01, 25 Apr 2005 Edit summary: "Politics - constitution quote so commies won't delete my edition"
 * Fidel Castro - 02:14, 27 Apr 2005 Edit summary: "Balanced the commie scale"
 * Venezuela - 19:43, 27 Apr 2005 Edit summary: "History - Revamped some leftist bs text from some Chávez accolyte"
 * Venezuela - 19:52, 27 Apr 2005 Edit sumary: "History - Removed more commie weed."
 * Venezuela - 19:54, 27 Apr 2005 Edit summary: "History - "Tyrant of the Andes" is just commie garbage muttered by 2% of the population or so"
 * Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - 00:28, 29 Apr 2005 Edit summary: "revert stupid idiot"
 * Venezuela - 05:16, 2 May 2005 Edit summary: "External links - Seriously, is a blog a reliable source? Only to Chávez accolyte garbage"
 * User_talk:SqueakBox - 05:48, 5 May 2005: ''"Any reason to keep editing my Fidel Castro remarks? You a Castro accolyte, cunt? [...] Give me a good reason why you keep reverting my shit, if you can't do that just please leave it the fuck alone. Already asked once in the Fidel Castro talk page and nobody had the decency to answer why they keep reverting to that biased bullshit. Kapil 05:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)"
 * User_talk:SqueakBox - 01:06, 6 May 2005: ''"[...] Stop editing other people's stuff, it's an universal truth that Castro's Communist Cuba is politically repressive, and that this is where tensions with the US stem from. [...] Kapil 01:06, 6 May 2005"
 * Cuba - 02:40, 7 May 2005 Edit summary: "I've seen the page, no reason to remove it, even if you're a commie like Comandante"
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 22:04 14 May 2005: "Put that'' in your pipe and smoke it, Grace Note, you succeed at irrelevance. Kapil 22:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)"
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 07:43 15 May 2005 Reply to Grace Note: ''"Stop being so left wing and accept a goddamn fact when it hits you in the face, Castro's achieved nothing and you're repugnant for saying otherwise, even when presented with facts [...] Read up on the Colombian conflict before rearing your hideous left-wing 'intellect' into a rational conversation. Kapil 05:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)"
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 01:04, 16 May 2005: ''"You officially suck, Grace Note. You're an inmensely, embarrasingly and repugnantly left-wing fidelista apologist and your "contributions" to this article are severely uninformed (or rather, uninforming), misleading, unenlightened and (above all), unwelcome. Kapil 01:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)"
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 01:08, 16 May 2005 ''"Rather, what is unwelcome is delinquent behaviour from users such as Grace Note and Comandante, who keep reverting to a misleading previous version when data and sources have been provided that prove otherwise (about the literacy thing). Kapil 01:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)"
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 01:12, 16 May 2005 "''[...] most of the delinquent reversion going on is mostly done by champagne communists with funky sources. [...] Kapil 01:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)"
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 02:57, 16 May 2005: "[...] I can't possibly begin to imagine why you would place the picture of the cocksucker sucking on a Cohiba back on [...] Kapil 02:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)"
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 00:18 19 May 2005 Reply to Grace Note: "[...] I maintain that your contributions are entirely unwelcome [...] Don't revert to your POV version, it's useless. I propose you shut up. Kapil 00:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)"
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 00:44, 19 May 2005 Reply to Grace Note: "[...] why the fuck do you keep reverting back to the Cohiba picture? It's sordidly unprofessional. Kapil 00:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 17:11, 19 May 2005: "[...] Fidel Castro, a virulent dictator with a loyal gang of accolyte followers such as yourself, a marxist delinquent. Whether you think I should be sent to arbitration matters as much to me as whether a little kid in Burkina Faso cuts down a tree. I certainly don't care at all, especially coming from useless garbage, and let me tell you, Grace Note, you are useless garbage. Discuss the article in an appropriate manner or just be silent. Kapil 17:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)"
 * South American Community of Nations - 00:41, 7 Jun 2005 Edit summary: "Stop being an idiot."
 * User talk:Cantus 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 "[...] Either that or you are an idiot. [...] I would advise you against lazy and hateful reverts, they do no good. Kapil 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)"
 * Hugo Chávez - 18:30, 13 Jun 2005 Edit summary: ''"If you're gonna be cocks about it at least have the decency to not remove the NPOV tag, some of us don't agree with your POV pushing.)
 * Hugo Chávez - 07:19, 15 Jun 2005 Edit summary: ''"rv tag. This article is almost entirely left-wing apologist babble.
 * Fidel Castro - 08:58, 16 Jun 2005 Edit summary: ''"[...] Desist or I'll have you banned.)
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 07:00, 16 Jun 2005 - "Sorry, you lost. You're not even making sense now. You're comparing the "monopoly on violence" with communist repression. And terms like "Weberian" don't impress me nor do they help your point. Bring forth some sources which dispute my claims or leave the article as it is, or I'll have you banned. Kapil 07:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)"
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 28 June 2005 18:40 ''"Once the page is unprotected, I will continue reverting. [...] I don't care how much of a historian you believe yourself to be, here in the Wikipedia your personal titles are quite worthless. It's delinquence and I will not stand for it. Kapil 28 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)
 * User talk:David Gerard - 1 July 2005 00:12 ''"I'm not Trey Stone. Losers. Kapil 1 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

-
 * 19:47, May 20, 2005 and 21:43, May 20, 2005

are a good example of confused behaviour, as I had neither reverted Kapil nor ever called him a right wing troll. This is the second time he has confused me with someone else. At times he appears not to know what is going on, SqueakBox 04:25, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Kapil says: The error was on SqueakBox's side, as he mistakenly thought my original comment was directed at him, whereas it was directed to a different user. Kapil 06:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Civility
 * No personal attacks
 * Wikiquette
 * Three Revert Rule

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * User_talk:KapilTagore - 01:18, 20 Apr 2005: User Fibonacci advises KapilTagore to "stay cool and don't mount personal attacks".
 * User_talk:KapilTagore - 16:58, May 5, 2005: User JCarriker asks KapilTagore keep in mind wikiquette and wikilove, and reminds him abusive language has no place at wikipedia and personal attacks are never appropriate.
 * User_talk:KapilTagore 19:31, 12 May 2005: User Viajero comments on one of KapilTagore's edit summaries observing that name-calling is not helpful.
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 03:16, 16 May 2005: User SqueakBox points out to KapilTagore that by being rude he will alienate potential supporters and end up achieving precisely the opposite of what he wants. "Being nice to people and sticking to the rules is the only way to get things done here."
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 16:09, 16 May 2005: User Rroser167 addresses a strongly-worded request to KapilTagore and two other users (TDC, Trey Stone) for civility.
 * Talk:Fidel Castro - 17:18, May 19, 2005 and 21:56, May 19, 2005: User SqueakBox twice requests Kapil and others for civility and to discuss changes rather than simply reverting.
 * User_talk:KapilTagore - 09:43, 15 Jun 2005 Use El C writes to Kapil: "Please refrain from editing Wikipedia if you are unable to control your temper, KapilTagore. 'Everyone hates you' is an unaccpetable personal attack."
 * User_talk:KapilTagore - 10:15, 15 Jun 2005 User Rd232 cordially reminds Kapil of various Wikipedia policies, stressing the need to "Respect other contributors"
 * User_talk:KapilTagore - 02:47, Jun 19, 2005 User DanKeshet urges Kapil to list his grievances with the Chávez article on the talk page.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Viajero 00:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox 01:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Mark1 02:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * DJ Silverfish 14:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comandante 22:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was possible, but this user seems even more uncompromising than User:Trey Stone. WebLuis 08:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A Colombian Trey Stone. 172 21:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I got dragged in here by KapilTagore because of my comment from the "outside" - now we are most unfortunately stuck together --Mothperson 01:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response
I merely reverted back stuff which was constantly edited by other users acting as a gang to promote their point of view, this included Grace Note, Viajero and Comandante. Anyways, as you can see from the Fidel Castro edition and discussion, I no longer respond in too offensive a manner to deserve to be banned permanently from the Wikipedia. Also, my conflicts with Fibonacci and SqueakBox were immediately resolved, so there's no reason to believe I'm a mere troll, as these users would have you believe. Kapil 02:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"Mothperson"'s opinion is ridiculous in that it institutes a personal offense, which is basically a breach of No personal attacks. I suggest you just keep quiet and to yourself if you're not gonna say something practical to add to this commentary, Mothperson, I don't know you nor have I time to pretend to be disquieted by your opinions about my personality. Kapil 02:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Please note how one of the users who endorses this commentary, Comandante, rudely ignored all discussion on the Fidel Castro article and proceeded to revert the newest version (which was created out of consensus) and reverted back to his own version. This is his usual behavior in this article, and he was one of the parties engaged in the revert war. Kapil 00:41, 21 May 2005 (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.

Mothperson
This is sad. KapilTagore has severe problems, and is exceedingly angry and unhappy for reasons only he/she knows. I hope the people who have been slashed realize it has nothing to do with them personally. But however awful it is to see someone so out of control, Wikipedia cannot solve these kinds of problems. It cannot rehabilitate this user. Only that person can. Block indefinitely. Mothperson 00:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Whig
In reviewing the RfC and the Discussion below, it seems to me that KapilTagore does not take seriously the policies of Wikipedia regarding personal attacks and abusive edit summaries, etc. Indeed, he seems almost contemptuous of the fact that he might be banned for misbehavior. I think that if he moderates his behavior, then the RfC accomplishes its objective, and if he does not, then it would be appropriate to consider blocking him indefinitely.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Whig 03:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
this is a faux-discussion - see discussion page. Mothperson 23:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Kapil wrote above:
 * ''Mothperson"'s opinion is ridiculous in that it institutes a personal offense, which is basically a breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I suggest you just keep quiet and to yourself if you're not gonna say something practical to add to this commentary, Mothperson, I don't know you nor have I time to pretend to be disquieted by your opinions about my personality. Kapil 02:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, this pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. KapilTagore tells me to keep quiet, and I do, and then he takes away my right of free non-speech twice, by reverts.  I wasn't saying a darn thing, and that infuriated him, apparently. This would be funny if it weren't so dismally hopeless.  --Mothperson 16:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Or rather, if you weren't an absolute tool you'd realize I was merely mistaken in thinking you wanted me to respond where you wrote "Re: KapilTagore". This pretty much sums you up in a nutshell, you go to the pages of users you've never even heard about, then opine on (lambast) their attitudes with a subpar (and sub-kindergarden, I'm affraid) exercise in psychoanalysis, finally commenting on the "sadness" or humour of the situation. I'm affraid your comment is (as the previous ones have been) absolutely useless and merely demonstrates your attempts at demonising me, and your sheer inability at doing so. It's funny how you think (and indeed shamlessly affirm, without so much as a hint of a reliable proof) I was "infuriated" at your leaving "non-speech" there therefore I edited it out, and is an incredible display of your eternal lack of common sense. I'm guessing the real problem in this comment page has become your constant, unfounded attacks against myself instead of my rude POV edition of pages, which has basically come to a halt. If I'm to be accused of going against the Wikipedia collaborative environment, you're doing the exact same thing yourself, and it is hardly appropriate to be doing so in a user comment page. Kapil 18:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I refuse to continue this little pointless conflict with you, Mothperson. If I'm to be banned so be it, I'm not about to start justifying myself to a person who's searching my every edition to find fault. I have no reason to even interact with you -as I've never had any conflict with you while editing an article or discussing it- therefore I won't. Kapil 19:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Kapil wrote above:
 * my conflicts with Fibonacci and SqueakBox were immediately resolved, so there's no reason to believe I'm a mere troll, as these users would have you believe. 

Please present evidence that these two users ever accused you of being a troll. Thanks. -- Viajero 17:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well not really being a troll, but being rude and crude, which is what I'm being accused of right now. Kapil 18:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Kapil is a troll. I see he is attempting to negotiate his changes in the talk pages of controversial issues, eg Fidel Castro, and that he has moderated his language, but he isstill being contemptuous towards other users, and is definitely playing his part in the rancour and biterness that is characterising the Castro article. As Kapil is potentially facing arbcom he really needs to change his attitude into a more collaborative one. I haven't personally endorsed this Rfc in order to persecute Kapil, nor less to try and stop his POV, but in order to get him to change his behaviour re being polite rather than rude to people, SqueakBox 18:14, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm merely responding to users who are equally obnoxious to myself (in the case of "Mothperson", with no real reason whatsoever). Unless I'm able to edit out their frequent slew of personal attacks against me, I think it's only fair to be able to respond in a similar manner. Kapil 18:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand all this arbcom thing - isn't it just possible to reset my IP and create another user even if I'm banned? It seems a bit pointless then... Kapil 18:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * See Arbitration Committee. Users who try to edit while banned or blocked and use other IP addresses are invariably spotted and all there edits removed. A temporary ban can quickly become a permanent one. See User:JoeM. If you are banned you will not have the freedom to edit that you now do (remember editing is not a right, but a concession from the private company Wikipedia that can be withdrawn). I don't want to see you banned but were the arbcom to do so and you were to edit in defiance of a ban I am sure I would find it easy to track your edits. So please lets try and keep you out of trouble. Which means backing down from directly confronting people who frustrate you. your behaviour still has room for improvement. Why not study No personal attacks, and stick rigidly to it from now on in order to impress people that you really do want to partake of this collaborative project. If you feel other users are obnoxious you should still be nice towards them, and if it continues build your own Rfc case. That is the only way to go, SqueakBox 18:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed they can revoke it, whatever, I mean, isn't it possible to edit anything even if you're not a logged in user? What's the use in banning a person if they can still come back and edit (in a less identifiable and traceable way)? Kapil 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well and what, am I voted out or what's the resolution to this comment page? Again, it seems to have degenerated into Mothperson insulting me and me retaliating. Am I getting banned or what. Kapil 18:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Read my above rewritten comment (edit conflict). Without an IP proxy you can easily be identified from the country you live in, which you have stated is Colombia in one of your edit summaries (I live in Honduras, not so far away), SqueakBox 18:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 18:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, an IP may be traced to Colombia. I seriously doubt anyone's gonna be checking all minor edits from Colombia and scanning them to discover if it's a Kapil edit or not, though. Whatever the case, I'm guessing this should probably be moved to the talk page? Kapil 19:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would advise you not to assume your edits would not be tracked minutely were you to be banned. Some people like me even enjoy that sort of challenge (good skill building exercise) that would involve tracking anon Colombian IP's in your areas of interest (putting all the subjects you have edited on one's watchlist etc), and banned users don't normally get away with editing anonymously. Please don't resign yourself to "They're going to ban me", as this is only an Rfc, SqueakBox 19:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not, I'm just curious because banning in a completely free and anonymously editable encyclopedia seems kinda futile. Kapil 19:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised. People who manage to get themselves banned usually have distinctive editing styles and a known set of interests. They are easy to catch  because they go right on doing the things that got them banned.  If they edit anonymously but don't engage in any of the behaviors that got them banned, what bother is that to us? The point is to end the behavior, one way or another. Isomorphic 00:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Take a read of Banning policy, SqueakBox 19:20, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

About Whig: I think it is entirely inappropriate that in a request for comment page, a user (Mothperson) is allowed to impunely throw unfounded personal attacks against myself, and is entirely ignored by other users. This is entirely unfair against me. How can you possibly expect me to take this page seriously when it is not used as a tool to make me mend my ways but as a mere window of impunity for people completely unknown to me, who berate, humiliate and annoy me on purpose? To quote Grace Note, this is a Request for Comment, not a "bend over Kapil" page. Kapil 06:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.