Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted by overwhelming consensus, no need to let this attack page sit on Wikimedia servers one second more. FCYTravis 19:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch

This "semi-project" on a user's subpage is being used to ensure that certain users are watched and to attack any religions that are not Hinduism. The Watch Page includes a long list of personal attacks against people who members of this guild deem "fundamentalist editors." This watch list is an extreme display of bad faith, referring to many established users as "vandals" or "dangerous anti-Hindus." On the main talk page Muslims have been referred to as "jihadi users" while Christians have been referred to as "Bible thumpers." I wouldn't be surprised if I ended up on their watch list because of this. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep .Netaji 05:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You're part of the project - why do you think it should be kept? BhaiSaab ^talk 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Editors should not be categorized according to religion, especially by others.Timothy Usher 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep--D-Boy 05:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Vote made by user who referred to others as "jihadi users" and "Bible thumpers." BhaiSaab ^talk 05:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- There is no need for personal attacks on D-Boy. Bakaman%% 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm stating an observation that has nothing to do with D-Boy's person. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete: Watchlisting, blacklisting other editors is always a very very bad idea. If you have problems, there is always WP:RFArb,WP:RFM, WP:ANB, WP:ANB/I to resolve them. But watchlisting a group of editors just because you don't like their edits (seemingly based on religious biases) should not be encouraged. --Ragib 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It is, in essence, an enemies list.Timothy Usher 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- User:Ragib is in cahoots with one of the watchees ([[User:Holywarrior]).Bakaman%% 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• See WP:NPA. Thank you. --Ragib 16:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• WP:NPA states that commenting on the actions of users is NOT a personal attack. Therefore it wasn't a personal attack on you or BhaiSaab.Bakaman%% 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Your unfounded and ridiculous "conspiracy theory" was an attack. You commented not on my vote, but on me. For the record, Holywarrior himself lauched attack pages on me, which were reported to ANB, resulting in his block. But I don't see how that matters in my vote. Thank you. --Ragib 16:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Comment (not Ragib, TUsher)made by a supporter of Witzel. Witzel's views on Hinduism (lets just say they're negative) are documented. Timothy Usher's friend :User:Dbachmann has threatened Netaji many times, and has made personal attacks. Usher still supports the wild admin. Bakaman%% 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia not being a battleground. FCYTravis 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Extremly strong delete Wikipedia is not here to harbour or protect your views or ideals. Organising a project to systematically push your view of your religion or critcise other is against everything that Wikipedia stands for and keeping a list of users to watch because you don't like their views/edits is a sign of very bad faith. Similarly sentences like "not really islamist but bible thumpers" personal attacks and are a major violation of wikipedia policy. The same goes for watching user because of their religious orientation (Rushdie Islamist POV). The goal stated "to make sensitive history-related articles in tune with the historian's POV and get them "protected status" is an indication of a massive missuse of policy. To what end do you want them protected? So your views stand and other editors do not get a say in it? This is ridiculous. Viridae^Talk 08:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch/Watch List should be included in this nomination. Viridae^Talk 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC) As should this and the pages included on this: User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch/Distortion Assesment. Viridae^Talk 08:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I assume all subpages are being put up for deletion. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. I've already seen this abused, when an editor who never displayed religious sentiments one way or another and just mirrored a mainstream scholarly opinion was labelled a dangerous fundamentalist. CRCulver 08:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If you are talking about dab, he made a large amount of personal attacks and threats and used IP addressesto fake a consensus. He cheats the system. (No Ragib this isn't an attack, I'm stating his actions).Bakaman%% 16:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Saying someone "cheats the system" is an assumption of bad faith. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Telling the truth is now "bad faith"?Bakaman%% 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Move to Wiki namespace The idea of the project was to have a list of controversial articles and strong POV pushers. Currently it appears to be anti-Islam yet that shouldn't be the case. It is meant to be a peacekeeping ground for all controversial areas such as Serbian-Crotian, Israeli-Lebanon, India-Pakistan etc. These areas can get very emotional for some editors here. It is a fundy (aka Fundamentalist) watch project and has potential to help Wikipedia. I encourage non-Indians to join the project. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I give up. Delete But I may think about starting a WikiProject along these lines, perhaps a sub-project to WP:CSB. Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough, though I find it hard to see a way that any wikiproject along those lines will avoid edit wars over articles due to it highlighting articles that are frequently subject to controversy (basically anything religion based) and exposing them to a higher traffic of editors who will be prepared to argue the case. Perhaps you could make WP:1RR a rule for membership to that wikiproject. It would certainly avoid those problems and perhaps foster communication in those high traffic articles rather than waring? Good luck, I will be interested to see how it goes. Viridae^Talk 14:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Despite Da Gizza's unfortunate and surprising attempt to defend the indefensible. --kingboyk 11:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I find it hard to AGF. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep--It is a necessity for Hindu pages. Many who make changes are not even wiki members or many people using one IP. Just land up on a hindu page and vandalize it. Aupmanyav 14:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That happens to the pages for other religions too, but you don't see them making a hitlist of sorts. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- The ones opposing this are the people who battle it out with Netaji and D-Boy.Bakaman%% 15:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've never "battled it out with Netaji and D-Boy." BhaiSaab ^talk 15:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: On this page you have.Bakaman%% 15:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think I have, but I don't see how that would make me retroactively put this page up for deletion. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do not battle it out with anyone. Viridae^Talk 22:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This is a repugnant project, which by its very existence, with a pejorative in its title, assumes bad faith. For the record I am an atheist and am no friend to POV warriors of a religious stripe but this is indefensible. Even a generic list of POV warriors would be problematic. This far more specific targetting is divisive to a fault.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Several votes have been solicited by D-Boy: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Solicited??? He just told us to look at it. Besides I would have found the MfD anyways. Stop the Anti-Dboy crusade.Bakaman%% 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Of course he "just told you to look at it." If you think I'm on anti D-Boy crusade you're welcome to post the evidence at the Administrators' noticeboard. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That looks to me like solicitation.Timothy Usher 06:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: - Nice, you're now mocking D-boy I see. Its obvious where your POV is so I don't need to state it. (or else its WP:NPA) Bakaman%% 16:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not mocking anyone. Like I said before, feel free to post about this at the administrators' noticeboard. It's here. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: First off, it wouldn't be a crusade. It would be a jihad. Second, it's not against me but Netaji. You probably found this page by watching him. You also wanted Hindu Unity deleted. Do I go out of my way edit or AFD islamic articles? No. I even helped out setting up the pak portal. But you seem to be going out of your way harassing the hindu articles that you don't agree with.سلام--D-Boy 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with D-Boy, you're not doing anything constructive on any of these articles, you're just complaining about documented evidence of online barbarism by certain people we watch.Bakaman%% 21:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I take strong offense to D-boy's flippant comments. This is no "Jihad" on my part, and I have no need to watch Netaji as I have no particular interest in editing India-related articles. I ran across this because someone posted about it on dab's userpage. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:I take strong offense to your threatening harassment on my talk page, your stalking of my user contributions. I've never vandalized any islamic article or xtian one for that matter. Your continued belligerence in matter is seriously disturbancing. You, sir, are making wikipedia an idealogical battlefield with your underhanded actions.--D-Boy 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment DBoy wrote, "First off, it wouldn't be a crusade. It would be a jihad." Either term aims to discredit a user's contributions on the basis of his religion - argumentum ad honimem at best.Timothy Usher 06:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• CommentFor someone making comments such as wikistalk or harass the editors on it? that would make you extremely hypocritical. Have I ever communicated with you? No. Have I ever vandalized any articles? No. However, you on the other hand put me on the adim noticeboard. I find this extremely rude that you didn't even notify of such an action. That action in itself was a form of harassment. I conclude that you should immediately cease and desist in any interaction with this AFD and with this user.--D-Boy 07:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Frankly, you can't issue such "Cease and desist" commands to other editors. If you have problems, go through the processes as advised by other users. WP:ANB and WP:ANB/I are two places where you can place your grievances, but other than that, "cease and desist" commands are not appropriate. Thanks. --Ragib 07:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• It was a conclusion, not a command. I can't stop him editting.--D-Boy 07:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Firm Delete while is purpose is noble (I agree with DaGizza about a possible WikiProject), this is not a clean way of fighting POV propaganda. Proliferation of such pages could reduce WP to an online political battlefield. Rama's arrow 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this for obvious reasons expressed above, positive support for creating a Wikiproject. Keep to the articles and leave the usernames out, invite further participation, no problem at all. Just zis Guy you know? 20:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• whatever -- the 'project' seems to have been started in good albeit clearly partisan faith. Now that the trolls are boarding it, it has got to reform or sink. The trolls won't go away either way, and this sort of thing has a more or less circular nature on Wikipedia (similar things will pop up intermittently). The way to go would be to ban the trolls and leave the good faith editors alone, but WP is still too deep in its "anyone at all may edit" ideology for that. Note that most good faith users involved in this are prepared to transform it into a Wikiproject, while the 'strong keep' votes are from trolls. Based on this, I suppose delete and/or Wikiprojectify it is, then. dab (ᛏ) 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that anyone that supports this is now defined as a troll.Bakaman%% 21:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Wikiproject FundyWatch?Timothy Usher 06:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dangerous Precedent - Strong Deletion - Most users supporting this are members or supporters of a Hindu right wing movement who themselves are repeatedly referred to as Hindu fundamentalists or Hindu Nationalists - decried all over the world and secular media in India for their support to violent extremism targeted against Muslims,Christians and Secular Hindus whom they call as Pseudo Secularists.They harbour a very distinct version of history very different to the mainline ones based on India's eminence against other world civilisations.What right does it confer them to call others as Fundamentalists or Anti Hindu on a neutral media like Wikipedia? Lkadvani 22:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The above vote is from a person who is known to insert POV that hurts Hindus into articles.Bakaman%% 22:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• As an editor I am not here to please everybody specially organisations or ideas that espouse or support violence.Lkadvani 22:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ok? Hindutva doesn't espouse violence. The Tehrek-i-Jihad or whatever organization burned the train (Netaji and advani battle it out on the Godhra riot article) espouses violence. The RSS is a social organization. If you go to a shakha you might find that all they do is yoga. I'm sure yoga now espouses violence.Bakaman%% 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am not delving into these specifics.You may refer to the relevant talk pages where these have already been discussed.What you have said is your POV as a supporter of Hindutva and the RSS. I and an overwhelming majority of World media do not necessarily subscribe to them.Again I dont wish to divert mind on these specifics on this particular page where we are discussing a wider issue.I will not post any comment on this thread further Lkadvani 22:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• CommentYou shouldn't have commented in the first place. I also feel that under WP:USERNAME, your username is inappropriate. Maybe we should notify adminstration.--D-Boy 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Needs to be deleted asap, IMO. Wikipedia's guidelines such as WP:CIV and WP:NPA strongly discourage this kind of "enemies list", but nevertheless, its only alleged purpose clearly violates the most basic of Wikipedia's policies, WP:NPOV. Our articles don't need any "historian's POV" (what about if the historian's Nazi?), but rather a permanent, neutral point of view. Also, assuming that others are creating a massive "history denial" on Wikipedia goes against WP:AGF. —Coat of Arms (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. There is a pressing need of keeping certain editors and admins under watch given their consisent habit of subversion of India related articles. Sometimes, if the vandal is a novice, it is quite blatant and reverted easily. Sometimes the subtle sabotage by more clever hate-mongers lingers on for months. Therefore we must maintain a watchlist of known India bashers at some place in wikipedia. The format is not important. It can a wikiproject or whatever. But something is absolutely necessary. Sisodia 04:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  "Therefore we must maintain a watchlist of known India bashers at some place in wikipedia." - No, we musn't. Instead, we ought argue the points at hand on the relevant talk pages. What can be the purpose of this list besides to 1) assume the bad faith of the editors on it 2) wikistalk or harass the editors on it? Any other ideas?Timothy Usher 06:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  If you have a problem with an editor/admins contributions to an article - take it through the relevant processes. Viridae^Talk 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete you keep this sort of thing in your head, not in your userspace complete with snarky editorial commentary. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The term itself "Fundy" is derogatory, it doesn't accomplish anything. If a group of users want to keep track of other users let them do that on their computers, not on the Wikipedia servers. JoshuaZ 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Attack page. Terminate with extreme prejudice. —ptk✰fgs 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no difference between this and those infernal B lists. It's gotta go. I thought I had warned DaBroodey about it months ago -- Samir धर्म 06:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely strong Rename/Wikiprojectify and keep This is a serious issue. LKadvani's comment above that the world media doesn't agree with the Sangh Parivar is a strong POV statement. IMO such users need to be watched. Personally, I am a critic of nationalism, but I don't make that an excuse to subvert all articles related to India or Hinduism. For example, nearly all articles related to Sangh Parivar are under NPOV crises. Those users who insert NPOV templates/statements are unfortunately not labelled "trolls". IMO, all articles related to Indian politics especially the "Hindu nationalist" variety, must contain strictly primary sources and those sources who are just critics/"crusaders against fundamentalism/communalism/blah blah" should be kept out, except in "criticism" sections. Also the "Vedic age experts" need to find sources for their statements. So this list under discussion can be like a Hinduism-article watchlist or even a wikiproject to ensure the Wiki-guidelines are followed and fairness and neutrality is maintained.--^Babub→Talk 06:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Watchlist functionality is built in to Wikipedia. If you want to watch an article for vandalism, all you have to do is click on the "watch" tab. I don't think we need a WikiProject for POV-enforcement and blacklisting of users. —ptk✰fgs 06:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply I was talking of something on the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. If some users could get together (I'm willing to pitch in too) and maintain a watch-list of the sort I suggested above, then this would do just as fine.--^Babub→Talk 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• An example Hindu politics, like Category:Hindu politicians (deleted) is tagged for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu politics by users (who are not called "trolls" by anyone). However, Islamic politics and Christian politics exist and nobody disputes their existence. I see it as a part of a disturbing anti-Hindu systematic bias and I'm saddened by it. --^Babub→Talk 09:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• bad example: there isn't a single delete vote over there. Agf for the submitter, at least he isn't trying to stuff the ballot. But while Christian and Islamic politics are multi-national, Hindu politics is India centric, and thus synonymous with "Hindu nationalism": two articles on the same topic, should be merged. dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to dab - Hindu politics is India centric? Mauritius has a large Hindu party, Guyana has a large Hindu party, Indonesian (Bali) Hindus have their own concerns, Sri Lankan Hindus, and of course Nepal. Its not only India-centric. Bakaman%% 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I generally agree with the above but the amount of POV fights involved in these articles is disturbing. But, not all of the politics of Hinduism is nationalist strictly. So I oppose the merge. --^Babub→Talk 09:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY DELETE the article and book everyone asociated with the project for launching personal attack on users listed there.Indef. Block on most of them would not be misplaced either.Holy | Warrior 08:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT - Above comment made by a user who has no qualms engaging in personal attacks and a person who always shows disdain for Hinduism. A block on the user above would be a prudent thing for Wikipedians to do.Bakaman%% 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I sympathise with the sentiment of protecting articles from religious, or any, POV. However, attack pages are not allowed. You might want to collect recurring POV arguments, counter arguments and helpful sources relevant to the subject instead. A discussion page on that would be legitimate. --tickle me 08:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment--I don't think there is any need for tracking someone for POVs because wiki is citation based,you can always demand citation and discuss it.Holy | Warrior 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I proposed collecting POV arguments, not names of or diffs by the users that made them. --tickle me 08:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like this to be transformed from an Attack page to a Wikiproject.--^Babub→Talk 08:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As stated above, wikipedia is not a battleground, and this seems like a training ground for battle. Not to mention all the personal attacks and bad faith. I also agree with DaGizza though that the basic idea might be useful for a wikiproject, it's current incarnation is something we really don't need here. Even a more neutral wikiproject will still have some serious obstacles, but it may be worth a try. The Ungovernable Force 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per several above. An article watch list is one thing, a user watch list is another. Incidently, I do not think a Wikipedia project called 'fundy watch' is any more appropriate than would be 'proddy watch,' or 'commie watch'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary, as we already have NPOV policies to address such concerns. bd2412 T 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not really a good idea although there would be no reason why a watch list of articles would be a problem --Spartaz 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the users listed were all described accurately (I haven't looked into it), user watch lists like this still interfere with creating a civil tone on Wikipedia. We do have blacklists and watchlists, like for extremely prolific vandals, but those are more central and more visible, and, hopefully, rely on the consensus of the whole community. --Allen 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.