Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Orissa religious violence
Status	closed
Request date	11:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Jobxavier (talk · contribs) Gabrielthursday (talk · contribs) Vvarkey (talk · contribs) Bharatveer (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)	LordSunday (talk · contribs)
Comment	This article has some serious NPOv violations. I'm going to advise the editors to give me some time to see what's neutral and what's not.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Orissa religious violence]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Orissa religious violence]]

• Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Jobxavier (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)
Gabrielthursday (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
Vvarkey (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
Bharatveer (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected)
Recordfreenow (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

1) Accusations of NPOV from both sides 2) Major disputes over content due to NPOV 3) Uncivil, to put it mildly, discussions on the talk page

Oops. The article: Orissa religious violence / Talk

I would like to see a better mediator than I am try to find some common ground amongst the parties involved. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that article is rather unstable and needs a rewrite. —Sunday +speak+ 20:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an eye on this :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orissa_religious_violence&diff=239186829&oldid=239185952 This text has been deleted innumerable times by user JobXavier and others, though it is well referenced and void of any POV. This is one recent example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'll merely note that I've expressed some of my concerns at the talk page : here and here. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally started the article and painfully cited and phrased article. I even got a licensed photograph requested from the owner and put on the site. All of it has been removed without any edit notes. I have been so frustrated that I requested semi-protection as well. There are certain editors who would just not allow any proper updates. I don't know if this is a relevant place to voice the concerns. However, it has been quite demotivating. Recordfreenow (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that the Page had been created by Recordfree. When I stumbled on it, it had been a Missionary pamphlet, with the blood of the innocent splashed all over. If that page is in an Archive, I suggest that it be looked into. If I remember right, the Page was introduced "as an attempt to detail Hindu violence on Christians in Orissa". So much for NPOV. I am happy that there is more NPOV in it now.

The Pic was from the All India Christian Council site, showing the touched up face of a girl, allegedly Christian and allegedly burned by Hindus in [allegedly] Orissa. Another pic was of a hut in poor repair allegedly a Church and allegedly in Orissa; and wrecked by Hindus. I am interested in having a look at other excellent articles by Recordfree now.

I have given my reaction to Gabrielle's concerns mentioned afore already.

Jobxavier (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been comments such as the one above by Jobxavier that have been so discouraging to editors. Rather than accepting or discussing, this immature editor has continuously deleted the reference articles themselves under the pretext of NPOV. Jobxavier keeps stating and complaining about opinions but does not discuss what aspects and how to rephrase information from reliable sources. In case of Orissa violence, this editor has asked to state about violence against Hindus, the editor has removed licensed images, changed the article conversation to conversion. In short, Jobxavier is just angry and opinionated and is not desiring to consider facts. It is not my job to convince Jobxavier or Bharatveer but just to present facts from reliable source. All I am doing is providing reliable source and cited information. This editor has a personal opinion about me but all this editor is doing is deleting content.

Let me take an example about the image that is being referred by this editor, With respect to image with burnt wounds [See Image of Namrata]. I have made repeated citations in discussion area, as well as within TALK that the authenticity of the images was validated by articles within Reuters, Wall Street Journal and Tehelka. Even Wiki commons editors have accepted the image as reliable source. See the following links. The mediators can make up their own mind.

• 1 The talk where I made recommendations which were accepted by another editor that this image is a reliable source. [See here]. This image was removed without any edit notes or discussion.
• 2 The Reuters article where the same photo of girl was referred as Christian and from Orissa. [See Reuters section] See image 8 of 30 in Reuters.
• 3 The Times magazine article where the image was referred as Christian and from Orissa. [See here] This editor removed the citation. Again remove the evidence and call the article made up.
• 4 Section in wiki commons where the image license was accepted. [see here]
• 5 Editor was requested specifically [here] not to delete image without discussing.

I am not interested in contributing anymore unless this editor and editor Bharatveer restrict immature behavior. Rather than asking specific questions in discussion area. Jobxavier and certain IP addresses are deleting hard efforts without much contribution to the article itself. Above that, this editor is continuously disrespectful in talk just as he has had that tone in the abovementioned response. The above explanation has taken a lot of my time and I am sure this editor would make a baseless response without explaining. I challenge this editor to please provide reference to any discussion question that has not been responded. I have personally requested discussion to this editor and user Bharatveer and Trips but they have not been polite enough to discuss and made edits. Either you discuss or else don’t edit. Recordfreenow (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, this article is already seriously violating some of the NPOV guidelines. I suggest that you request the help of someone who has experience with these type of articles. —Sunday +speak+ 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a rewrite. That's the only thing I can find to fix it up. I agree that it is very unstable and needs cleanup. I'm not experienced with this kind of article, but involved parties are advised to request the help of someone uninvolved. —Sunday +speak+ 20:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Recordfree would check the Discussion page again, before alleging that POV material was arbitrarily removed. Jobxavier (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool down, Recordfree. It is un-Christian to call people 'immature' etc , just because they do not contribute to your POV. Most unfortunate that you a Priest, should do so. And I do not have anything personal about you as you allege, despite how you feel about me.

The page as you originally wrote it was only POV, as you yourself would agree.

"It is not my job to convince Jobxavier or Bharatveer but just to present facts from reliable source. All I am doing is providing reliable source and cited information." I agree with you that you should do only that.

In passing, Tehelka is a publication that invites and accepts donations. It is not neutral.

Jobxavier (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning users: I have examined this case and realize that both sides are contributing unstable bits of information. That's not helpful to me at all. This may be a little rough. Calm it down, or this could go to the ArbCom and some of you may be banned. Just a tip. —Sunday [speak+] 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested an insight from the sysop above. I think this is a disputed subject and all of the involved users should know that I'm letting an admin give his $00.2 on the subject. —Sunday [speak+] 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about ArbCom. That's what mediation prevents :-)

Regarding NPOV - some parts are one folks' POV, and some parts are anothers'. Is there any part of the article that everyone agrees is generally OK? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts Sunday. FYI... I have stopped contribution to the article for more than a week and also stopping further contribution to discussion unless specifically asked. You can check with other editors. So there is no point in cautioning me with threat to ban. Appreciate your fairness and objectivity. Thank you for your mediation. I realize that it takes time and effort. Recordfreenow (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really find one xavex, that's the only reason that I didn't just give these users a slap and close this case. —Sunday [speak+] 11:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Lemme look at things. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0.02c: for now, I think it's important for all editors to focus on content and not contributors. The comment above - "Cool down, Recordfree. It is un-Christian to call people 'immature' etc , just because they do not contribute to your POV. Most unfortunate that you a Priest, should do so." - is more than a little mean. Please don't make comments like that :-P Xavexgoem (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read tht he said I am immature; because I objected to his POV? Has he been advised that such words are immature? Jobxavier (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I question the wisdom of mediator LordSunday's decision to warn off the involved editors from further contributions. In my view, this is a matter of judging all editors on the actions of a few. I have limited time to work on this page. Other editors' persistent reverts made it difficult for me to improve the article, and resulted in this mediation. I further object to the implication that I have been part of the problem. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge the comments being made by user Jobxavier, [here], to be reviewed. Calling himself/herself a pious Christian and attacking my article initiation, then moving on to several accusations, without support is extremely provocative. Please help me whether I need to complaint anywhere else. Also, I don't understand why the protection has been removed when the article is being re-written. I appreciate your help. Recordfreenow (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not sought to make personal accusations against Recordfree. I only pointed out his POV insertions. I cannot help being an honest Christian. Recordfree's original article was totally POV; so have his edits been. Jobxavier (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobxavier, why do you continue to state that you are a Christian? Are you trying to gain acceptance or validity with other editors? Please know that the editor community is able to see through. You have called me priest, father etc... I have never stated what my religious provocation is? In fact, I have never engaged in direct conversation with you until now. Please extend some civility. Recordfreenow (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think recordfreenow is completely correct. He might have been posting controversial content to the article, but now JobX, it is all you and your "team" as I should call them. I warn you now that if this goes to ArbCom, some of you are bound to get banned. I'm not withholding that possibility any longer. Cheers. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 11:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]