This is an RfA talk page. While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy. Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs. Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere. Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with ((subst:rfan|dm|name of section header)), indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed. Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

VictoriaGrayson, I'm not objecting to your !vote, but could you give some diffs substantiating that the candidate is "anti-Hinduism/anti-India"? This sort of thing would be good for others to be able to verify for themselves. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral in this, but a second oppose !vote came in stating the same thing. Before casting my vote, I'd like background on this as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if these editors - as well as the candidate - should be notified of this, given the rationales and concerns raised. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, John Jaffar Janardan seems to be a sour-grapes pile-on, as he's only been on wiki for 7 months, and the only interaction [1] is in this failed AfD nominated by JJJ [2], and this article where V disagreed with and reverted JJJ: [3]. Softlavender (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than meets the eye. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John Jaffar Janardan: And that would be? - NQ (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you were right, definitely more than meets the eye - NQ (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Interactions with VictoriaGrayson are much more extensive [4], but I don't have time to thoroughly analyze, at least not at present. There's also the thing that the candidate mentioned in Q&A about being in a lot of conflicts in the beginning but learning to collaborate more in the past 18 months (whether that's true or not I don't know). Softlavender (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VictoriaGrayson has summed up their rationale here - It is easy to gain respect on Wikipedia by being an anti-India editor, because for whatever reason people hate India. - NQ (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, she changed her !vote a dozen times (so far) [5], but without any actual evidence for any of her claims. It would be nice if she would actually back up her statements. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, VGrayson hasn't changed their !vote, they just posted a lot to the page, grouping a few of them together, these were the edits to the page: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4. Voted once to oppose before the RfA was live, removed by BU Rob13 for that reason (diff), Grayson put their vote into oppose again, commented in support. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at every one of her edits to this RFA, and she altered her vote ten times (including four times before the RfA opened). I think you may be confusing the word "change" here -- I didn't say she switched her !vote, just changed it. Softlavender (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC); edited 00:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes, I was using a different definition of change. I apologize. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to see diffs here. Accusing an editor of what amounts to racist biases is a borderline personal attack when not backed up with some form of evidence. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and would like to see something as well. VictoriaGrayson, will you be providing anything to support this any time soon? "Vanamonde93 belongs the 'pro-Islam/pro-Pakistan/anti-Hinduism/anti-India' camp, which makes it impossible to add even the most basic academic sourcing." Was he ever brought to ANI for "pro-Islam/pro-Pakistan/anti-Hinduism/anti-India" behavior? Was he ever sanctioned for it? If you could not adequately demonstrate that he is pro-Islam/pro-Pakistan/anti-Hinduism/anti-India, would he then be qualified for adminship? Your comment doesn't address the adminship issue, it only 1) accuses him of having both religious and ethnic biases and 2) says that those alleged biases interfere with your ability to add references. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was at ANI several times. I haven't reviewed all of it, but it seems he was brought up at ANI by @Human3015: [6] [7] and @D4iNa4: [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calypsomusic (talk • contribs)

I've been at ANI a number of times. Doesn't mean I've been brought to ANI, or even if I have been (I can't remember) that anything came of it. Accusations are accusations. In your first example it looks like he was being pinged and Human was being reported. His participation in the second example is of little consequence. He's added comments on an issue that doesn't revolve around him. In the third example, the ANI report was closed in favor of an RfC that the reporting party decided to open. You're beating dead horses. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As i said, i haven't looked much into this. here he was warned together with his opponent.--Calypsomusic (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And? Does that mean he's incapable of using the admin tools responsibly, VictoriaGrayson? I'm not calling *you* VictoriaGrayson--I'm just waiting to hear from VictoriaGrayson, who should be commenting here instead of you, as it is the whole purpose of this thread labeled "VictoriaGrayson's Oppose". I genuinely don't see the purpose of your commentary or research, since it's not your !vote that's being called into question. It's like if someone voted "Oppose - he's a dick" and people said, "wait, why do you think he's a dick?" Then you jump in out of the ether and start explaining why you think he's a dick. It serves no purpose. You can't answer for someone else. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have also put strong oppose vote and put some diffs in support of my remark. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I find your timing very bizarre. You've made no substantive edits since April 2016, but managed to show up in time to throw shade on Vanamonde's RfA? That smells fishy to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had interaction with him and I have presented evidence. I get RfA popups. My most recent edit makes it clear how I know. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have put evidence in my section below, Others also, in particular, "his intent to misrepresent sources", exemplifies his bias. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from an earlier comment about Vanamonde on another talkpage:

• Vanamonde wrote in the BJP article: "Historians studying the riots found that there was a high level of state complicity in the incidents" But the sources were not historians, so again misrepresentation.
• On the Godhra train burning massacre: The mainstream book "Religion and Human rights" says: after the Sabarmati Express train was forcibly stopped at Godhra Ciy and burned by a Muslim mob, resulting in the fiery deaths of 59 Hindu passengers mostly women, children, and seniors returning from the holy city of Ayodhya." But after the train burning, there were conspiracy theories that the Hindus burnt themselves suicidally for a staged trigger for riots, or that it was an accident that they were cooking something in the train, or that they provoked the attack, or that they were guilty and got what they deserved. But 30 Muslims have been convicted of the burning. India is not country like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or China, India is a democracy and in a country like India it would have been impossible for such a high profile case to convict 30 Muslims when they were innocent. There would have been riots all over the country. But Vanamonde is trying in several places to make appear the controversy that it was an accident as the dominant version, and the court conviction as not so important that it even needs to be considered in a summary. So there may be something wrong with how Vanamonde is using sources. Other users have told him on this issue that he using outdated sources: One user told him: "Her commentary is also outdated. The most comprehensive investigation represented by the Nanavati-Shah Commission was not completed at that time, and the court convictions of the accused had not taken place either. Now that we have all that additional information, her conclusions seem quite out of place in 2014." Talk:Godhra_train_burning/Archive_2 Vanamondes editing was also criticized here [9] "This is not the first time either. " or here and probably many other places [10] The Partition and the Bangladesh Liberation War were the two cases of communalism with the largest numbers of victims, most of the victims of the latter were Hindus. Vanamondes simly removes this second-most important case.[11] Then VAnamonde is accusing me of editing BLP article. But most of my edits were removing BLP violations. On articles of BJP politicians, he is slanting the article to an overtly negative pov, like in Amit Shah, Uma Bharti, possibly LK Advani, and others. [12] The BJP article stated: Anju Gupta, an police officer in charge of Advani's security on the day of the demolition, appeared as a prominent witness before the commission. She stated that Advani and Joshi made provocative speeches that were a major factor in the mob's behaviour. But in this source, [13], it is said that the " BJP on Monday termed as "false" the statement of senior IPS officer Anju Gupta in a court against L K Advani over Babri Mosque demolition and said the veteran leader did not give any speech on the day the structure was razed down. " (on this one I'm not completely sure if it was Vanamonde, but he will say if it was not him). I believe there were other misrepresentations by Vanamonde and some discussed on the BJP talkpage . AP may better know about these. --Calypsomusic (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over everything, it seems like your real issue is that you simply don't like the content Vanamonde is seeking to include in Wikipedia. Regarding the Godhra attack, Vanamonde is not espousing alternate theories of the Godhra attack himself, but is arguing for the inclusion of such theories in Wikipedia based on their inclusion in what he says are reliable sources. But then you and others claim these sources are not reliable because they contradict the official investigation, which is sacrosanct for no apparent reason. I reviewed the entirety of this dispute today, and while I have not reviewed his sources, Vanamonde's arguments are at least based on policy, and his detractors' largely are not. Regarding the allegations he is wrongfully slanting BLP articles, in the example you give Vanamonde returned to the article a well sourced event that actually happened - the arrest of Shah for murder. Vanamonde's edit did not accuse Shah of murder, but accurately and neutrally pointed out that he'd been accused and later granted bail. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia would hold that anyone's being charged with murder is a pretty significant aspect of their life and should be included in any biography. If the charge was dismissed that's a reason to expand the content to point out it's been dismissed, not delete it entirely. Anyway, I looked at one other link you posted, and it's Vanamonde admitting he made a revert by mistake. Big deal. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was an old comment, some of it taken out of context. In other articles he was ojecting against adding details on the Godhra article. In the gujarat riots article for example, the article does not state that a mob was at the standing train, only that a fire started under "convtroversial "circumstances. From what I have observed, Vanamonde has been arguing to not add such details on godhra massacre, or on overrepresenting the conspiracy theory of an inside job despite that over 20 or 30 people were convicted in court for starting the fire and trapping the Hindus in the train. not only Smdranthe, but he was also involved in such disputes with Shrikanthv (talk · contribs), Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs)AdhunikaSarvajna (talk · contribs)BengaliHindu (talk · contribs)Unbiasedpov (talk · contribs) IIRC. He also tried to do an outing of Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs), for which Yogesh accused him IIRC. --Calypsomusic (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh khandke edits under his real name and has outed himsel numerous times in the media. The other users you mention are all pro-hindu nationalist POV editors, and being in content disputes with them says nothing about his editing except that he strives fore neutrality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never disclosed my real world identity - please provide diff - with evidence I have - or withdraw this allegation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well Maunus making an accusation about other editors is hardly a new thing -sarvajna (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003: Your second question was a multi-part question which had two parts on completely distinct topics. You may ask at most two questions at an RfA, with multi-part questions intended to get around that rule disallowed. Please observe this in the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from project page

1. Strong oppose He is a biased editor as some others have already pointed. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   • He attempts gaming the system. Here Vanamonde93 says: We are both at 3RR now, and cannot make further reverts; maybe that will make you discuss this.

   • And here. And Here he is found re-inserting doctored quotes.

   • Deliberately frustrates and derails discussions severely. Check the appropriateness of his remark: "dudette" is female in this discussion.

   • And the attitude here .

   • Example of discussion exemplifying his intent to misrepresent sources, and relenting only after several reverts and remark from other editors, until then he attempts to game the system with 3RR. Similar attempt here.
   • Vengeful towards editors or edits that are not aligned with his POV. here he interjects in the middle of a series of improvements by another editor, without any discussion and prod`s the article. It was clearly notably and survived.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AmritasyaPutra (talk • contribs)

Discussion

1. Vanamonde93 has stated that the second GA review of Bharatiya Janata Party was a big learning experience for him. It would be useful if you focused on his conduct afterwards. I hae opened a talk page section here, if anybody would like to discuss them further. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Kautilya3, I was within my rights as an involved editor to make my inputs to review. I did not mention the GA here. Why do you bring it up? His conduct is in question, RFA is permitted to have such discussion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I mentioned the second GA review of Bharatiya Janata Party because it was stated by Vanamonde93 as a key stage of his maturation process. (See his answer to Question 3). Given that it was more than a year ago, it would be useful to focus on any events that happened after that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. AP, I'm puzzled by your last diff. The Dylan Schmorrow diff (your last one) appears to be a prod on an article about a US Defense official and I don't understand your 'vengeful and not aligned with his POV' comment. Are you suggesting that Vanamonde93 has a specific POV on this retired US Defense official? Nor do I find evidence of vengefulness since they don't seem to have ever interacted with the other editors. Along with the "We're both at 3RR edit" (sometimes you need to force a discussion and discussions are good for Wikipedia) some clarification would be helpful otherwise this appears to be an attempt to dig through Vanamonde93's contributions throw stuff at them. --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   RegentsPark, it is unwise to prod an article while it is in active editing without consulting the editors, it went against his pov too on another article. The intent of forcing other to talk by hitting exactly 3 reverts is malicious. I had interaction with him, I am not digging. Here is another example of his bias where he reverts due to his pov and I intervened. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   AmritasyaPutra, you need to clearly explain what this 'POV' on Dylan Schmorrow is and where Vanamonde93 was vengeful when placing that prod because you're accusing them of using the prod for vengeance and pov pushing. And there is nothing wrong with pushing for a discussion if the other editor (in the 3RR) refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. In fact, by reverting and posting a message on the talk page Vanamonde did the right thing. I'm sorry, but your India examples appear to be content related disputes while the Dylan Schmorrow and Guatemalan ones are not what you represent them to be. --regentspark (comment) 22:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   RegentsPark, my remarks are based on all the evidence I presented. You have concern on few. You are inaccurate in surmising them as content dispute. Could you be specific about "India examples appear to be content related disputes"? What is your remark on him re-inserting doctored quotes and derailing discussion? I have presented my evidence. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   AP, you haven't presented evidence or explanation for the POV and vengeful accusations you made against the candidate on the Dylan Schmorrow article. Could you please do that or withdraw those accusations. Otherwise, I'm sorry to say, this looks like desperate digging beyond the boundaries of your content dispute on India pages. Thanks.--regentspark (comment) 16:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RP, AP said that his remarks were based on all the evidences they provided but you still insist on just one article, one diff? Should we assume that you are satisfied with his remarks about POV and other accusations based on other diffs? -sarvajna (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)20:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemalan revolution

AmritasyaPutra says He attempts gaming the system. Here Vanamonde93 says: We are both at 3RR now, and cannot make further reverts; maybe that will make you discuss this.

Looking at the editor interaction listing [14], I notice that Sigehelmus started editing the page on 15 September 2015, questioning reliable sources and labelling them as opinions. Vanamonde93 pointed out WP:YESPOV. A talk page discussion was opened on 22 September, but Sigehelmus proceeded to edit-war without reaching consensus. After the 3RR point noted by AP, the matter went to AN3, which was closed with no action because Sigehelmus self-reverted.

I guess the question is whether Vanamonde93 should have pushed the other user to the 3RR point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Golwalkar

AmritasyaPutra says Vanamonde93 found re-inserting doctored quotes.

The editor interaction listing [15] (including my edits) shows that AP, who had just returned from a long vacation, started deleting major portions of the article (first attempt and second attempt). I reverted the first attempt [16] and Vanamonde93 reverted the second [17]. I think both of our edit summaries were self-explanatory. There was some talk page discussion following this, which fizzled out inconclusively. Being an involved editor, I will refrain from any other comment. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was grudgingly accepted when non-involved editor also supported my edit. Vanamonde93 re-inserted doctored quotes despite being explicit told is-a-fact, it is mentioned on the talk page section I linked. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded closest to the place where query is made in connection to my remark. Most of them are at the oppose section at the moment. It is unwise to split or reinterpret my remark. My remarks are in direct relation to the candidate in question. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes were not "doctored" they were just not sufficiently paraphrased, and he had a good reason to think that you were removing them for invalid partisan reasons.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It was an explicit quotation inside quote marks, with certain words edited out in middle -- not a paraphrase. You do know the difference. You should present evidence for your aspersion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: This sets a dangerous precedent and is akin to limiting you from using your tools in equine related articles which is equally unfair. - NQ (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only if he agrees that he is involved with the entire area, which I think would be a silly thing to agree to.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read it more as a request of sorts rather than a question. There is a high chance I might be wrong though. - NQ (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least a dangerous precedent, but I can make a minor rephrase, I suppose. The India/Pakistan area is generally under discretionary sanctions and is highly contentious. This editor has a track record there and any action he'd take, no matter how well-intentioned, could be misconstrued. Where someone is too involved, they should not act in an admin capacity, that's part of what WP:INVOLVED is all about. At my RfA, I was pretty much asked the same and the argument was made that I could not possibly be an admin because I had opinions in an area. I'd like to see how Vanamonde93 answers this question. To me, I'd much rather see admins admit to having opinions (because we all do) and be able to demonstrate how and when they can temper their own instincts, whether by a method of maintaining neutrality or by knowing when to recuse. Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but I'd really hate for them to be restricted from taking any admin action (say for example blocking disruptive socks and vandals) just because they are active in that area. I'm all for WP:INVOLVED and the candidate has reiterated the same in Q7 and Q8, I suppose I have reservations about the "broadly construed" part of the question. Cheers. - NQ (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a fair question (though I would have phrased it differently) and, hopefully, we'll see a statesman like answer from the candidate because it would be helpful to see how they draw their lines on INVOLVED.. I'm more concerned about the second question which seems more suited to a candidate for Arbcom than in an RfA. Excessive amount of homework for a job that doesn't need it.--regentspark (comment) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there have been multiple ANI threads on these topics. People (more than one) have resigned their sysop tools over Gamergate issues. I am very serious that an Admin needs to show their procedure for handling the difficult stuff, even if their answer is to hand it over to the known experts... Montanabw^(talk) 02:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting silly. Should we also add a canvassing note because all of Vanamonde's friends have voted?!?--Calypsomusic (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the canvassing note applies to anyone asked to come here and vote a certain way. clpo13_(talk) 21:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's still at least one un-struck comment by this now-blocked sockpuppet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Shifted content here from the main Rfa page; the below was written by ip 115.249.241.99) Lourdes 13:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attack on Kswarrior
• Undid revision 594403261 by Kswarrior (talk) Re-inserted sourced content removed by edit warrior.

Can anyone tell me where is the sourced content? @The Blade of the Northern Lights: @Regentspark: @Begoon:

along with Darkness Shines gets Kswarrier blocked due to numbers being on there side

• 1:1st source is ^{[citation needed]} A reliable source ?
• 2Economic and Political Weekly has not accused the RSS of of using terrorist methods to impose its ideology..
• 3: .^{[citation needed]} A reliable source ?
• 4:Adivasis demand ban on Shabari Kumbh Mela.Has nothing reliable

The other sources are about RSS protests and a interview

• 5RSS protest against terror link allegations

Version reverted by him in Team tag with Darkness Shines is better soured than his revert by Kswarrier While the diffs here may not seem like much or a big deal at first, they follow the pattern of overall POV pushing listed there.I can list over 200 articles. Removes Sourced Content Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

• reverts The Guardian figure which claimed a RSS membership number figure to a lower figure

Sabarmati Express page

• Changes as per his POV proven to alleged and perceived despite BBC and Times of India sources

Godhra train burning

• Removes sourced content from The Hindu to his POV version

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.241.99 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could the IP be so kind to identify theirselves? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit shows some complex multi-way edit-warring [18]. Without going into specifics, the general pattern of edits by Kswarrior (typical of all editors that argue for Hindu nationalist POV) are:

• They pick and choose which sources to include (rather than to look at all the sources and summarise them).
• They ignore the quality of the sources. The only thing that matters to them is whether they are pro-Hindu nationalist or anti-Hindu nationalist.
• They ignore the "insider" issue. Most of the sources cited by them are either members of the RSS or BJP, or one of the myriads of organisations fathered by them.

I see Kswarrior pushing such sources, and Darkness Shines, Vanamonde and Indopug objecting to them.

However, when I wrote reliably sourced content that supported Hindu nationalist positions, e.g., Ayodhya dispute#Historical background or Suraj Bhan (archaeologist)#Ayodhya dispute, Vanamonde was quite ok with it. This is what he alluded to in his answer to my question. He modified his own positions when I pointed out the weakness of his sources, e.g., here.

So I don't buy the argument that he is biased against Hindus, or even Hindu nationalism for that matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between passively accepting other ideas/sources from other users (which all cooperative wikipedians have to do), or actively using a wide variety of sources, including those one disagrees with. Indeed, you are one of the editors that have achieved the latter, but I wouldn't say the same of Vanamonde, rather the contrary. Sometimes he was downright hostile to include other viewpoints and sources, saying he was not willing that they are being used. The result is large parts of the BJP article are sourced to Guha, who is outspoken in his anti-BJP bias, or that in some articles a quote from Nussbaums 2007 book is used as a summary of the current view on the causes of the Godhra train attack, even though it is oudated, since "the most comprehensive investigation represented by the Nanavati-Shah Commission was not completed at that time, and the court convictions of the accused had not taken place either. Now that we have all that additional information, her conclusions seem quite out of place in 2014." Maybe it would also be worth to hear @Kswarrior:'s opinion on the allegations above. --Calypsomusic (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wide variety of sources including those one disagrees with. That is not what I do. I look at all the sources with an open mind and subject them to scrutiny, by cross-comparing with other sources and raising questions to see if they can answer them. I don't "agree" or "disagree" with a source based on my own predispositions.

The problem with your attack is already stated in my second bullet. You are not looking at the quality of the sources but are grading them only on a pro-BJP/anti-BJP basis. That is not how Wikipedia works. A TV channel might, but not us.

I originally undertook a GA review of the BJP article, and told Vanamonde privately that I didn't like it. If I continued my GA review, I would probably not have passed it. The sources that Vanamonde used (Guha and Malik & Singh) are looking at the BJP as just another party, whereas, in reality, the BJP is part of a broader Hindu nationalist movement, as reflected in the scholarly consensus. Whereas you think Guha is "biased," I think Guha is inadequate because he doesn't get to the bottom of the issues. (That is not his fault, however. He is writing the history of India, not of the BJP or the Hindu nationalist movement.) If you care about the topic you should read Jaffrelot. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just don't see that Vanamonde would look at all the sources, he is rather "ignoring the quality of sources". Sure he is masking it with claims that his sources are just better, but I just cannot imagine that he would use a source like Meenakshi Jain as you did in your link above, even if she would be the best source available for a topic.

Your point about Guha is also something I told Vanamonde. Guha's book is a popular history textbook, not a book on Indian politics.

And I'm sorry, but looking at the link you provided, was Vanamonde really at first making the claim that Ayodhya is holy to Muslims because allegedly Adam's grandson was buried there? or even as holy as it is to Hindus? Such an idea would probably rather be be heretical for most Muslims. --Calypsomusic (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that is what his source says, a Research Associate from the "Institute of Race & Poverty" at the University of Minnesota. And, his source in turn was M. J. Akbar. I didn't dig into how Akbar got his information. The whole thing was bloody ridiculous.

There are only two scholars who did research on Ayodhya, Hans T. Bakker and Peter van der Veer, both European. No Indian scholar ever did any research on it, even though they all claim to give expert opinions on the subject. That is the sorry state of affairs.

Coming back to Vanamonde, it could be that he is too credulous with his sources, a problem that is also coming up in other contexts. But it has to be countered by bringing in good quality sources, not RSS propagandists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have realized that Rfa is a place which encourages heated dispute. But I would rather hope that experienced editors refrain from painting any or many editors as nut jobs or hindu warriors, words which I have now encountered in the Rfa, targeted at the oppose group. This is clearly not the way to oppose the opposers. Hope this request is not viewed wrongly. Lourdes 03:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the reason for opposing is accusations of bias, it is certainly relevant to note any obvious bias of the opposer. Several of the opposers are hindu-nationalist POV SPAs - when it is they, and not for example an editor who has an objective relation to India related topics, who accuse someone of bias against hindus that needs to be taken into account. From an extreme viewpoint neutrality looks biased.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From an extreme viewpoint neutrality looks biased. Indeed, that is the problem here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, are you familiar with Hindutva? It is relevant to this RfA. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sitush, no I am not familiar with Hindutva. I understand the implication here though, and have myself opposed the banality contained in some opposes. Still, my personal choice would be to not call editors nut jobs. Lourdes 14:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. It isn't banality, though: it is vicious stuff from people who often are indeed "warriors" in the Hindutva context. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lourdes. A lot of the supporters have forgotten that WP:NPA applies to everybody.--Calypsomusic (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]