Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:15, 6 August 2006

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 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 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 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 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 ().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 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 Misplaced Pages not being a battleground. FCYTravis 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Extremly strong delete Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 08:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch/Watch List should be included in this nomination. Viridae 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC) As should this and the pages included on this: User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch/Distortion Assesment. Viridae 08:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I assume all subpages are being put up for deletion. BhaiSaab 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 16:41, 6 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 Misplaced Pages. I encourage non-Indians to join the project. Gizza 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 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 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 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 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 16:10, 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: , , , , . BhaiSaab 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 16:22, 6 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 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages (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 the 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages?

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)