Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kurmaa


 * ''The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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: 21:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 30 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Kurmaa, who has been around Wikipedia for some time but has only recently begun to participate in depth, is showing some difficulty in conforming to talk page guidelines outlined at WP:TALK. In a number of cases, it's disruptive. This behavior is occurring amid disagreement at articles related to Kamrup, including Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit, Ahom kingdom, and Kamrupi; it seems that Kurmaa has a fringe viewpoint on the matter but is not actually contributing to resolving disputes in any clear way.

Desired outcome
For the disruptive behavior to stop. It would be ideal if Kurmaa could learn how to collaborate with other users, show a responsiveness to evidence that contradicts his viewpoint, and utilize the talk page as a way to improve article content. A combination of imperfect English skills, a fringe viewpoint, and stubbornness means this will take some patience from a mentor. Patience that I don't have. An alternate choice might be some sort of topic ban, though Kurmaa so far has been pretty restricted in editing articles related to Kamrup so a topic ban might be equivalent to a general Wikipedia ban.

Description
Kurmaa posts the same thread in multiple forums
 * There's this message about a "ranghar image".
 * And this post about "Lower Assam" being derogatory.
 * Recently, he even reposted parts of a thread from the same talk page, seemingly to get more attention.

Kurmaa misrepresents others' posts
 * At Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit, he requested (repeatedly) a certain piece of information from Chaipau. Since it seemed irrelevant (and neither of us had the information anyway), I asked why he was requesting it. He refused to say. When we didn't give him the information, he went around to editors' talk pages to bother them about it, covering up his misrepresentations through a lack of diffs and anonymous references to myself and Chaipau. Kurmaa even went so far as to continually post on one editor's talk page after they'd expressed that they were not interested.
 * In another instance, Kurmaa accused Chaipau and myself of acting in bad faith by "teaming up" to perpetuate something he disagreed with.

Kurmaa seems to provide threats to others
 * At Talk:Ahom kingdom, he accused Chaipau of falsifying a map featured on the article (don't be confused by Kurmaa's difficulty with English. When he says "plagiarism" he means original research), despite a source clearly given. In addition to making reference to a formal complaint at that talk page. He then went to the talk pages of several editors to ask how to formally complain. Note here that he acknowledges that he has gotten this answer (on August 7) but did not make any effort to utilize dispute resolution. Instead, he began asking a similar question about "independent varification", which makes it seem as though he only wants to use the cloud of such formal investigations as a threat rather than as a method of actual dispute resolution.
 * In regards to the exchange mentioned above at Kamarupi Prakrit, Kurmaa cited the Freedom of Information Act, several times, believing it gives me a legal obligation to provide him with information he requests. He has been making reference to deadlines to myself and Chaipau

Kurmaa is disruptive in Wikipedia space:
 * He has put talk comments on article pages


 * He has edit warred at Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi


 * He has made assertions that have serious WP:V issues . When it was pointed out that his assertions have no factual basis, he choose to ignore them and raised provocative (and unrelated) issues regarding women .  At such points it becomes impossible to maintain WP:AGF, or to continue a collaborative dialogue.

Kurmaa has employed confirmed WP:SOCKs: User:Pranjitb, User:Mussal, User:130.65.109.101
 * The sockpuppet is confirmed here.

All of this comes with a fringe point of view not backed up by facts or sources. This talk page comment seems to sum up his views. Edits he disagrees with or that he doesn't think fairly portray Kamrupi people are "ethnocentric." There's also this absurd claim that a source is unreliable because its author is a cheat (a thoroughly unsubstantiated accusation).

Evidence of disputed behavior
Provided above

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:TALK
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:FRINGE
 * WP:NLT

Attempts by Aeusoes1

 * August 15
 * August 22

Attempts by Chaipau

 * July 16
 * August 15

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


 * — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 21:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Chaipau (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Lachitbarphukan (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * White Ash (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by Go Phightins!
My view is that the user, at times, is clearly acting in good faith, but as mentioned may have some English issues and is frustrated. I would support a week-long topic ban followed by a mentorship program where he/she can learn about edit warring, the three revert rule, etc. I know of a few specific users who may be able to mentor Kurmaa, but it is clear his edits are disruptive and something needs to be done to stop this disruption. Go Phightins! (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Go Phightins! (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) SpaceBetween2| (talk) Proviso being if you do 2 reverts in one day, 1 revert the next and 3 the next then you are not gaming the system or invoking the 3RR rule. How do you make a proper CURequest like this one is? What does # do versus *? I need help on the syntax and machinations of wiki, from direct advise, as often the pages that are supposed to explain require prerequiste knowledge or blatantly dont tell you the exact steps needed to make x.

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the 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.

Hey how did you make this request? where Can I find a guide about creating RFC and citing diffs in a CURequest, and other such stuff?? I go to pages on wiki but they say nothing of the code you need to make this detailed, they dont explain how to list a page on the "candidate" etc.

Summary
User is indef blocked for sockpuppetry and never responded to the above, so it is being closed as stale. In the even the should be unblocked, this RFC could be re-opened to permit him to address the community's concerns.  MBisanz  talk 19:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.