User talk:Akhilkodali

July 2018

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content is primarily derived from tabloid journalism and not primary source. This is violation of the policy.Akhilkodali (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Per WP:COI I advise you to no longer edit that article and to instead suggest changes on its talk page. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 22:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies

Please read wikipedia's BLP policy and its policy on reliable sourcing. Do not post potentially private or harmful information about living subjects, or primary documents that contain such information, especially ones hosted on partisan websites. Base your talk page comments and article contributions on high-quality secondary sources independent of the subject instead.

Finally can you verify if you have any conflict of interest with regards to the subject or this topic area? Abecedare (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Abecedare (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally:

Do not add links to privately hosted content that violates wikipedia policies including WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO etc as you have done previosly. Limit yourself to linking to reliable secondary sources that can be used to improve the articles.
Since you have an acknowledged conflict of interest with respect to Swami Nithyananda, please read WP:COI and, in particular, disclose your association on your userpage/article talkpage. Also, do not edit the article yourself any more. Propose edits on the talkpage instead.

Abecedare (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare How should I disclose that ? I am not paid by him directly or indirectly. But I am a supporter of his work.Akhilkodali (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy the following userbox to your user page ie, User:Akhilkodali

{{UserboxCOI|1=Swami Nithyananda}}

Abecedare (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some detail on how this stuff really works here

I know Wikipedia can be difficult to figure out, and doesn't always seem fair, especially if you are used to how journalists work. I'll try to cover this stuff in clear terms, and sufficient detail. I expect it might take half an hour to pore over this; it took about twice that long to write it, and this is much more time that I usually devote to trying to help a single-purpose account. I'm taking it on good faith that you'll absorb how we go about working on our articles, and get involved in doing that well instead of in an adversarial fashion. I'll number the general points for easier reference.

Free free to suggest rewording changes for any material, at the article talk page (but I wouldn't bombard it with stuff; try one thing at a time). This is the fastest way to get questionably neutral wording changed on a page that's been locked down from random drive-by edits, as this one has. Be aware that they won't be accepted if they are non-neutral in the other direction, or if they depend on primary or other unreliable sources; more on that below. It's best to suggested a particular change to a particular passage, in a new talk-page thread (or subthread, i.e. with a ===Level 3 heading=== instead of ==Level 2==). These sometimes take multiple revision passes before consensus is reached about them.
Reporting that there was a controversy, because a flood of newspaper reports demonstrate there was a controversy, is not prejudicial in any way. Wikipedia is not taking sides in the controversy, just noting that it did in fact erupt, what it was about, what Side A's view in it was (claim of wrongdoing), what side B's view was (denial of wrongdoing). If there's been a final result of this controversy, we should report that, too, but we need secondary sources on the matter. It's probably very instructive to look at the Donald Trump article, which quite extensively covers a lot of controversies, in neutral terms (aside from some occasional bad edits that don't last long).
Materials hosted on Nithyanada's own sites, or fan sites, or Facebook, and that kind of stuff, are not reliable sources (nor is material on that NithyanadaTruth criticism site; we tried to have it blacklisted, but admins have turned the request down, for the time being). They're just self-published blogs, a particularly weak form of primary source (remember "primary" in this sense doesn't mean "main" or "important", it means "has not been analyzed by reliable third parties"). It does not matter in the least whether any of these sites, pro or con, claim to have gotten a document from a court, or the police, or whatever. It's not (yet) verifiable with a secondary source.
It is not any Wikipedian's job to file legal demands for documents from the Indian government. Those documents are also primary sources. Wikipedia editors doing their own analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis (AEIS) of primary sources is not permitted here, and doing any of that with legal documents is especially error-prone. We must have secondary sources do that AEIS. If a Wikipedian did it, that would just be a primary source (an individual Wikipedia editor, who is not a reliable source) claiming to have gotten other primary sources and analyzed them. That's a primary source "times" a primary source, if you will, like multiplying two fractions; it results in a "source" that's less reliable that just one primary source by itself would be.
Honestly, it seems that if there was any kind of final determination in the "death at the ashram" case already, by now there should be secondary sources (or soon will be), such as news reports (in real newspapers, not "pay us to print your press release" fake news vendors) that cover that outcome. When someone finds those (they don't have to be in English, but they can't be total-crap publications), we can update the section with what the outcome was. Until we have secondary sourcing, from one or more actually reputable publishers, the controversy remains unresolved as far as Wikipedia is concerned. That doesn't mean that the exact wording used in the section right how has to remain untouched, but it does means we're not going to pretended the controversy doesn't exist.
It is not going to be enough that Nithyananda's people insist that "police and medical examiners ruled out any foul play" and insist that they have scans, even if we can see the scans. Publishers other than than Nithyanada's people have to say what the outcome was, publishers who are reputable, reliable sources. I understand that this can seem strange or even unfair, but you have to understand and accept that Wikipedia is not news, and does not interview people or regurgitate what officials say. We wait for multiple journalists and such to investigate and fact-check, and for their editors to ensure that due diligence has been done, and for the journalists' and editors' publishers to agree that it's been done and then publish the story. Even then, the press often gets stuff wrong, or at least questionable. Your own position in all of this, after all, is that all these media outlets are lying. We obviously can't accept that position at face value, but we're trying to take all sides with equal skepticism, and we're well aware that some Indians newspapers are not reputable.
In fairness: I had suggested to someone from Nithyanada's camp to try to get the legal documents; my hope was a) doing so would turn up some way to get them, online, directly from government websites (court site, whatever); they'd still be primary sources, but higher quality ones "straight from the horse's mouth", and possibly usable with caution for a few clear facts (probably quoted directly). Or that getting them on paper and scanning themwould at least provide text that could be used to search for news reports that were quoting (and analyzing, etc. – AEIS) the official paperwork and producing sources we can actually use more broadly – secondary source material. But this doesn't seem to have been fruitful (yet?). It was probably a worthwhile exercise for Nithyanada's own people, to have these material on hand for their own use; but just by themselves the docs being on Nithyananda's own sites isn't enough, nor would copying them somewhere else help.
On a different matter: While some "swami haters" have done some bad things at this article, the vast majority of impermissible edits to the article (and proposals for more of them, on the talk page) have been made by followers of Nithyananda, including grossly non-neutral wording (aggrandizement and promotion), including outlandish claims of miracles. I directly and personally warned some Nithyanada reps to not do this (via Skye or something) several months ago, and they either did not take the advice, or they really have no influence over what Nithyananda disciples are doing. They need to understand that it is not going to happen that Wikipedia is going to say that this guru cures people and makes them levitate and see through walls and so forth and so on. It does not matter how many primary-research papers you come up with from no-name "academic journals" that print pseudo-science, or how many local, non-reputable fake-news journalists make such claims, or how many follower testimonials there are about miraculous happenings. It's just not what Wikipedia does.
We're already making it clear that Nithyananda disciples believe and claim that he can do these things. That they do so is self-evidently, demonstrably true from available reliable sources, and it makes sense to include the fact that they do, in the context of the article. It can't go beyond that. "Miracle confirmation" is not something Wikipedia ever does. And it can't be piled on; under our due weight policy, we can't have a huge list of miraculous claim after miraculous claim. What's already in there is probably too much, and I expect later editors to pare it down.

I hope this clarifies things. If it does not, I'm not sure what to tell you, other than that continuing to make demands you've already been told will not be complied with (especially if you hint further toward bogus legal threats – lawyer lingo like "prejudicial" is unwise to use here), or keep pushing pseudo-scientific claims with sources we cannot and will not use, that you'll soon enough just get blocked from editing (at that article or in general), and the article will be protected at higher levels and for longer. I'm not some self-styled Emperor of Wikipedia, I'm just an experienced editor who knows how these things go. When I warn you, it's not a threat, and it's not angry or motivated by ill will of any kind, it's just a prediction based on understanding of Wikipedia process and policies (and the editorial community's lack of patience for single-purpose account with strong ties to the subject of the article they're trying to change.

PS: In several places on the article talk page I've provided links to search tools, more sources, and suggestions of non-scandal-related material that could be researched for this article, and even provided a fill-in-the-blanks citation template for the other world-record info, and no one from "your side" seems to want to bother, only to fight against the "other side" about the scandal material. It's not productive. The most productive material to work on will be non-miraculous facts backed up by independent reputable sources.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: thanks for your patience by explaining all the above. —Paleo Neonate – 17:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilkodali: Adding, in relation to #3: WP:SPS and WP:USERG: self-published sources and user-generated content (including Wikipedia) are considered unreliable. There are exceptions where a self-published source is from an expert on a non-controversial topic, or when it's only used for uncontroversial facts that are not covered in secondary sources. —Paleo Neonate – 17:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish and others I am in no way attributing you with an "agenda" beyond enforcing the wiki standard. Wiki standard itself is marked as discretionary primarily due to "lack" of proper coverage in a country like India. In case of Trump there is complete coverage (although motivated), it was possible to extract the "events" from these sources. In this subject's scenario, "events" themselves are missing from the coverage completely. For eg, police declaring no-foul play. In many scenarios media in India is restricted from reporting on legal matters. I pointed out various orders and discussions to this effect. Applying the "Trump" standard here is prejudicial. Wiki reviewer are defacto (maybe not intentional) playing the role of journalists and interpreting the data. For eg, take the issue of birth date, always available in the court documents available online. The western standard of media being able to interpret and cover events cannot be attributed to India as english media doesn't cover local events unless its sensational unlike the west. English media presence is virtually non-existent outside of 5-10 main cities. The legal proceedings in this case is happening in small town. The incentive of English media to cover local events in small town is non-existent unless its scandalous. I'd like to repeat again using media reporting to understand court proceedings is "incomplete" at best for the reasons I mentioned above. In a "discretionary" setup the reviewer have to get involved deeply as the standard itself is "arbitrary". Akhilkodali (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way attributing you with an "agenda" beyond enforcing the wiki standard. I did not perceive such insinuations. I also think that like any new editor you can gradually learn and even come to appreciate Wikipedia and its processes and possibly even eventually also edit on other topics. We tend to start with what interests us, sometimes too much, which is very human, and we come to Wikipedia because it is so widely known and read. I also agree with doesn't cover local events unless its sensational and for those reasons, it may be best not to have an article about us... When someone is notable enough, through praise or scandal, they get unavoidable presence (some request deletion of the article about them without success). This is also why WP:BLP policy adapted to become more strict over time. —Paleo Neonate – 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself: I did not perceive such insinuations. Well I now noticed such insinuation at the comment about my supposed "western sensibilities". We should discuss sources and content not editors. —Paleo Neonate – 05:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Wikipedia editors "have to get involved deeply" is not going to happen. Please actually read our WP:Neutral point of view policy. I've looked over the "death in the ashram" stuff in particular detail, and you've been trying to cite 2014 primary sources from the police as "proof" that nothing bad happened, when the 2018 fact is that an Indian state court has opened an inquest into police mishandling of the investigation and autopsy, and recommending that the federal CBI re-investigate the case. This is the furthest thing from the police documents being reliable; the court itself thinks they're not. It also clearly means that no exoneration of Nithyananda's organization in that woman's death has happened. It doesn't mean her family's claims are correct, it just means that the case is still open (more so now than it every was, since failure to investigate is the proximal cause the 2018 inquest). Our article's job is to report that the case is open, what's the claims are and what the ashram's counter claims are, then wait for reliable secondary sources to tell us more. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Swami Nithyananda. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Akhilkodali (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No reason is provided for blocking me

Decline reason:

Reason has been provided, both in block message and in a more detailed explanation below. Max Semenik (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Akhilkodali (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for reviewing admin(s): This is the last-straw edit I blocked for. See prior warnings/advice on this user talkpage and this section on the relevant article talkpage for context. Please consult me before undoing this block (through email if you want to discuss the BLP violating materials/sources specifically). Abecedare (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I now noticed the block. It's a short one, I recommend taking the week off while thinking about why it occurred. As a non-administrator I cannot see edits which have been revision-deleted, but I assume that links to primary sources that could compromise individuals with information that is not already public in reliable sources have been shared again, against the WP:BLP policy. No reason is provided for blocking me please read again: for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. —Paleo Neonate – 06:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not clear. You'll have to explain to me. Akhilkodali (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To spell out, your edit again:

named an alleged rape victim
cited a primary source (the Karnataka court order), and misrepresented what it actually said
included claims from, and cited, an DNA India article, which you have already been told is a questionable source

Note that the above is only for sake of explanation, and not an opening for debating these issues (trying to start that debate will likely result in your talkpage access being revoked). You are free to re-apply for an unblock if you wish to have the block reviewed, although I'd advice carefully reading WP:UNBLOCK first. Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Talk:Nithyananda.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have blocked you indefinitely for this edit in which you once again named an alleged rape victim and discussed her sexual-health history despite multiple warnings and a prior block for similar conduct. It is clear that you are unable to edit in this topic area, in which you have a conflict of interest, without violating wikipedia policies. If you are interested in editing in other unrelated areas, I will unblock you but topic-ban you from all Nithyananda related articles and discussions, under the discretionary sanctions you have been informed of earlier. If that condition is not agreeable to you, you can follow the instructions in the above template and appeal this block. Abecedare (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: and other reviwers. I didnot post on the main page, I merely suggested based on the additional articles, the "victim"'s name was quoted in the newspaper and she herself has come out openly in the media repeatedly. Why should suggestion on talk lead to outright ban ? And I doubt the "independence" of the reviewer who blocked me. I would like a full disclosure about the reviewer. It is very likely this reviewer has strong opinions based on his historical preferences. I have been very transparent about my interest from the beginning. Request your intervention and thorough review Akhilkodali (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil, you have already been told that WP:BLP policies apply to talkpages too; in fact, the edit that precipitated your previous block was also on the same talk page. And setting aside the (poor) quality of the sourcing in this recent edit, I have already explained why "victim's name was quoted in the newspaper" is not good enough reason for you to repeatedly name her in the article and the article's talkpage. In any case, I have spelled out the reasons for your block. You are welcome to appeal the block, if you wish. Abecedare (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to ban me then why remove refs to make source including times of india (something which you seem to approve of) ? You seem to have blocked me earlier are well. On one hand article has been tagged discretionary and protected. When discretionary shouldn't there be more leeway on "talk". Considering you and I have different "standards" and you are the one with power to edit and I am a mere suggestor ? Akhilkodali (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: and other reviewers. My contributions has been raising the standard of article, and I fail to understand the hostility when I am acting in good faith. Akhilkodali (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare's interventions were of an administrative nature, they are not a main editor of that article and there is no reason to believe that they have a conflict of interest in relation to the topic. Per WP:INVOLVED, they would defer to other admins if they were. Administrators are normal editors who must abide by reliable sources, consensus and policy like any other. They have extra tools but as noted here, should not use them in situations where they are involved. —Paleo Neonate – 09:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't it have resulted in redaction of "violated" content instead of outright removal of all before it being properly reviewed ? Seems arbitary and premature when there is no bad faith involved ? -----

Probably not. If a post violates a privacy or other policy, especially one that might result in WP:OVERSIGHT to remove it from the logs entirely (as this one was), the then entire post should just be reverted. Everyone's a volunteer here, and is not obligated to sift though bad material for something that might be good. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Akhilkodali (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understood the reason for the block now, I was explained in the chat room. I agree to the conditions stated in the block.

Decline reason:

As per below, you have no intention of abiding by a topic ban. Yamla (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There is no mystery as to your being blocked. "I fail to understand the hostility when I am acting in good faith" is disingenuous. The block has been explained to you very clearly already: 'you once again named an alleged rape victim and discussed her sexual-health history despite multiple warnings and a prior block for similar conduct. It is clear that you are unable to edit in this topic area, in which you have a conflict of interest, without violating wikipedia policies.' That's not hostility, it's normal preventative action by an administrator, after sufficient warnings. Pinging me and other people back to this talk page isn't going to change anything.

Some of your article talk page participation did help raise the quality of the article (or, rather, speed up some improvements that would have happened anyway). However, most of it did not, including: utterly misleading suggestions that the ashram death case was over and had been found in Nithyanada's favour; urging of us to insert pseudo-scientific claims based on primary sources; repeated injection of the "Nithyananda has no STDs" claim which proves nothing other than that condoms tend to be effective; and so on. I've already done sufficient digging around in Google News to identify most of the reliable sources we're every going to find, in every applicable language. It's just a matter of editors now taking the time to pore over it all. Further input from you at the page isn't going to be helpful.

You should probably take Abecedare's topic-ban offer: get back to editing, even on historical topics about Hinduism or current events in India, but just avoid the Nithyanada page in particular. Two things are not going to happen: complete suppression of controversy about this (frankly quite controversial) public figure in the guru side of Hinduism in India, or insertion of unprovable scientific claims on the basis of "papers" written by someone from his own gurukula. Other editors will continue to patrol the article for re-insertion of verbal attacks against Nithyananda, and its overall shape should improve over time.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a representative of the subject Nithyananda, I request the deletion of the page on the subject. Akhilkodali (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He (and by extension you) cannot demand the article be deleted because he (and by extension you) do not like it. In addition, he (and by extension you) cannot dictate the content of the article. All that would happen is someone else would create the article anew, and the sourced content you're objecting to would end up back in the article anyway, putting you right back at square one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to have a discussion on this deletion with the community about it first. Akhilkodali (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am stating my position upfront Akhilkodali (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]