Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 27 March 2008

User:Cult_free_world/Proposed_Sahaj_Marg_India

This page is a 5th attempt to post a duplication of pages on the topics of Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Here are the original sets of articles, which all were deleted due to lack of secondary sources and notability:

• Time 1:
• Then, these articles, which were variations of the original articles above, were deleted due to lack of secondary sources and notability as well, , .

Here are two recent attempts to re-post the exact same articles again, one on a regular page, one on a talk page, , . Now, the exact same article has been posted on user space here. There are repeated assertions that "new" third-party secondary sources have appeared, but despite repeated requests for them, none have been forthcoming, , which leads one to conclude that it's because there are none. Finally, the group/practice is just not notable. This and this are what comes up when one runs a Google News search on the topics of Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (i.e., nothing). Please note that when the strategy of posting in main space without new sources failed, the user tried to post in talk space, which failed as well. Now he has posted in user space (the exact same article), to circumvent the deletion review process. Please consider salting the topics given this persistent attempt to circumvent the deletion review process. Renee (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nomination. Also, please also speedy delete this, which was made in my name without my knowledge or permission. Renee (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom flaminglawyer 01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• WARN and Salt all appropriate mainspace titles. This user has tried to monkey around with WP:RS, WP:N, WP:SOAP, with three different usernames over... I have lost count how many articles. Personally, I could care less what he does on his userpage, minus the WP:NPA ], but why on Earth should the wiki community be wasted with another attempt by another username in the mainspace? I say an admin warn him about about recreating an article without sufficient sources, again, and boot him if he does it. Sethie (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. Regurgitation should only happen in cows. A pig with lipstick is still a pig. This is a pretty blatant attempt at getting round wiki rules with the exact same material that couldn't pass muster in the past. If wikipedia were medieval Rome, User:Cult Free World would have been excommunicated for crimes against other users intelligence. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, that surely wins my support for best !vote of the day. Joe 07:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Enough with the personal attacks, already. Let me remind you that this is wikipedia - It's not your place to challenge other users motives. Please limit your discussions to the issues. We'd be happy to look at any secondary sources that you may have come up with since the article was canned last - If not, I vote that this article must go! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you not already voted in this same page ? why are you in such a great hurry ? the page cannot be published without sources, and that is precisely the reason, as why it is in user space, i.e to add reference as per WP:RS --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

About Motive of other user's, what do you think this is for ? and why was this needed from user:jossi, whom Renee approached for deletion of that page ? why do people declare their motive when heavily biased editing is obvious. --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me type this slowly to help you read better. Motives are immaterial here. Present solid secondary references if you want to post anything here. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is clearly a yet another attempted blight at Misplaced Pages. A new user trying to post the same information when it has been deleted 4 times before on solid grounds. It is disruptive and negatively affects the trust that WP is trying to build. Duty2love (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per comments above. How many times do we need to go over the same material. I wish wikipedia users use discretion in their edits so that this forum is not reduced to the "lowest common denominator".--Innerself (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Innerself's contributions till date. --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I believe that this constitutes a reasonable use of WP:USER space, provided the editor continues to improve the article with a view to eventually moving it into article space. Needless to say, at present it is nowhere near being ready for such a move. Sheffield Steel_stalk 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. "...this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content..."Renee (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason not to re-nominate this page if no work is done on it for some time, which might imply that it was being used as an archive. Sheffield Steel_stalk 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But where do you draw the line? Say he works on a few lines a week, continues to revert edits by anyone with other viewpoints, continues to make statements not backed up by the sources, still provides no secondary sources. How long do you wait? I know you've interacted with this person before, do you really think he's trying to write a NPOV article? acting in good faith? (with the reversions, failure to produce a single secondary source, the personal attacks like below) This is why I suggest he create an article on Word and then follow Wiki procedure and go for a deletion review. Renee (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that you have also reverted changes to the article in Cult free world's user space. Why not leave him in peace to work on this article? The place and time to draw the line, in my opinion, is when and if the article is moved into main space, at which time policies like WP:RS and WP:V apply to it. As an aside, Renee, I would caution you against this sort of thing because it may constitute a violation of WP:CANVASS. Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to notify all active users when an article was put up for deletion? I notified all those who had been active on this and other versions of the article, regardless of whether they were positive or negative toward the group. My apologies if one is not supposed to do that. I honestly thought we were supposed to notify active editors.Renee (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep At present, it seems to be working, not archiving. There is an active discussion in user space about the way of revising it to create a suitable article. That they have previously tried and failed does not prove that it is impossible for them to succeed. Whatever may have been the case in the past, the present effort impresses me as being in good faith. I am unwilling to assume bad faith, just inadequate preparation of an article. Personally, though I doubt that they will succeed in producing anything acceptable, they should be permitted to try. Given that there is active collaboration in the process at present, the wikipedia user space seems an appropriate place to work on it. DGG (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Unfortunately, there has not been active collaboration. To the counter, three other editors have tried to work on the article and he continuously reverts them (e.g., see this). He just ignores our comments on the talk page (i.e., see ten requests for secondary sources by a variety of editors above, as well as discussions on references). He edits to promote a POV in line with his user name (e.g., see this). He knowingly mis-labels court cases (i.e., he labeled a court case "sexual abuse" when it was a libel case that the court found prima facie libelous and defamatory). This pattern is identical to the pattern in the previous articles; the active editors on these articles just don't want to repeat a frustrating history. We just need some sort of mechanism to prevent the abuse (i.e., reverting edits, refusing to collaborate, mis-labeling or mis-representing sources, etc.) and it seems like salting of the topics would work, because then a proper deletion review can take place where the new evidence can be evaluated on its merits without all of the violations of Wiki policy. (It's just as easy for him to work on his version on Word, since he won't allow anyone else to work on it anyway.) The real issue here is abuse of the system, which I hope Wiki policies can prevent. Renee (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Non-notable, no adequate sources. Agree with Renee's comments that this is an abuse of the system. Mayawi (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why delete? Attempt to delete this temp page, is an deliberate attempt by the group itself from preventing an article from getting published, as i have noted before also,, I seriously doubt that Renee is also a paid member of the group as user:jossi is of prem rawat , Jossi and User:Reneeholle are in close connection with each other, this is evident here , where User:Reneeholle approaches here wikipedia friend, to delete an article, why no AfD tag on the page ? and then again immediately after filing a WP:IU report against me , User:Reneeholle approaches user:jossi for help in getting me blocked from wikipedia, only to prevent this particular article from getting published, this was in addition to various notices and useless warnings after warnings to me, , her problem with this article being getting published is evident here , where her first edit to the temp page, was the removal of all links of court dockets related to the cult. There is no statement made, in the temp page about dockets, simply a link to the available court docket is presented, and the page is exact translation from wikipedia's french twin about the same subject . My attempt is to translate the same page from french to english, add all the sources for each and every statement in the page, get many eye's on the page, to confirm neutrality, RS and NOR, and then finally publish the page. What is the concern when there is a temp page, in private user space, copied as it is from wikipedia only, another language, where a complete category is present about the said topic , why can't english wikipedia have one stub about the same subject? and is there for translation, adding references and then publishing it. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult Free World/talk-to-me was banned for one week for personal attacks like the ones above and below (see this).

This miscellany for deletion case is not about what the article says, but about upholding the proper Wiki deletion review procedures and about avoiding the mis-use of user space. WP:User says if the space is being used to maintain his preferred view of disputed content of previously deleted material, that is a mis-use and should be deleted. Cult Free World/talk-to-me has reverted every single edit by other editors in order to maintain his preferred view of disputed content, this exact content has been deleted four previous times, and the condition for re-posting content (provide secondary sources) has not been met despite being requested by a variety of editors over ten times. Wiki has procedures for cases like this, deletion review. Let's work together as a community and follow those procedures.Renee (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I have viewed the history and it appears to me that Cult free world is making a good faith attempt to build the article. Given that there are concerns about the article it appears appropriate that it should be developed in user space. I would like to see other editors either assist in building the article or leaving it alone to develop. Listing it for Speedy deletion, excessively tagging it for references, and putting it up for MfD are questionable techniques for improvement. If progress on the article ceases for a significant length of time, then would be the time to discuss removing it from the project - right now would be the wrong time. SilkTork * 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator's reasoning. Xdenizen (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The user was certainly incorrect in attempting to create the "clone" articles in mainspace and on the talk page. However, the user appears to be actively working on the article, and if, when ready, the community judges it worthy, the project could be improved thereby. I am, I think, not being too naive; I do understand the rather robust exchanges that have occurred. On balance, though, wide latitude is given to a user working on an article in user space. WP:USER recognizes this practice, and new editors often are actively encouraged to do it as a means to prepare an article for mainspace that will meet the appropriate policies. I'll extend the user the good faith of believing that this is what is happening here. If were proved wrong, certainly there are those who are being vigilant to take action. Xymmax (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• What is this for ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Looking at the votes a pattern emerges: Those who voted "keep" have not personally worked on the topics in question or with this editor and his previous incarnations (he is not new, "I am someone who was previously involved with article"); all of those who have voted no have, plus a few who haven't. The reason we are asking for secondary sources up front is we're observing the exact same sources/info as he's put in previous versions (i.e., primary sources, foreign sources, blogs/self-published websites, info that appears on his blog, etc.). There is a consistent history by this user of citing a reference for a claim made in the article, and yet when the source is examined, no such thing is said. We are weary of researching, documenting, and discussing the same sources over again, and hence, have asked for the reliable third-party secondary sources up front. Having said that, I will follow-up with a compromise proposal. Renee (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)