This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Further, his clear conflict of interest in the article should inherently mean he should discuss any changes he wishes to make on the talk page. Surely as an admin you know this. He just a few days ago was trying to get this page deleted because his version was "far superior". How he hasn't been banned from outright editing this page ever is beyond me. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN are two different things. I lifted the partial block after a discussion with Kailash and it had no further preventative purpose. If you can move on from who changed it, to what changed, I think Kailash's latest edit was an improvement. I hope you will agree. Cabayi (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Sulfurboy: Though Cabayi raised some valid points about the Tamil-first aspect of Kailash's changes and concerns about some potentially lengthy quotes, the bulk of what Kailash was trying to submit was, in fact, an improvement, and there is no crime in him feeling pride in the work that he performed by calling his work superior. I don't know what your axe is with Kailash, but I have interacted with him for years in the very problematic world of Indian entertainment article editing, and he is one of a small nucleus of very strong editors who work very hard to bring articles to GA and FA quality, and he is generally dependable. I certainly don't think he deserves the hostility and condescension you are directing at him. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, There's a difference between having pride in your work and then outright trying to get an article deleted because you think your version is better and then when that deletion failed, repeatedly trying to blank and overwrite a page with your own content. If you're not able to see the very problematic nature of those actions then I recommend reviewing basic Wikipedia policies. I think you and Cabayi's friendship with this person has blinded you both to just how egregious this editor's actions were. Cabayi's only punishment was a week ban from editing the page which has already been rescinded. I'm teetering on taking this whole thing to arbitration as the actions of all involved here are highly suspect and show a lack of basic knowledge on Wikipedia's policies. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sulfurboy: What you are failing to comprehend is that Kailash's attempt to get the article deleted was predicated on a good-faith belief that the IPs that created it, were evading a previous block. I tend to agree with that opinion as I detailed in the relevant SPI, and I would have speedy deleted the article on G5 basis, had there not been other editors involved in improving it. Kailash is a content contributor. He's not too good with the mechanics of anti-vandalism and sockpuppetry investigations, which is why he asked me to help him establish the socking information. It's also relatively easy to understand that when I told him it couldn't be speedied, he went the AFD route, because typically if a speedy doesn't fly, an editor will try AfD. Even if it was a bad call on his part, I can imagine that it was done in good faith, which you don't seem to be capable or willing to do. As for Arbitration, do what you gotta do, but it is possible that this overly-hostile attitude toward Kailash and your need to "punish" him might point out flaws in your own behaviour and your own understanding of what sanctions are for. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, thank you for saying the things I struggled to convey. Sulfurboy, I already apologised for the G5 and AfD over here, those I feel were the only mistakes I made because I didn't understand G5 completely. After that there was nothing wrong. Though I chose to forgive you despite all that happened, looks like it is the third mistakeer (pun on musketeer) I made. Now can we three review my edit and decide what to add from it and what not? Kailash29792(talk)16:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, I'm not failing to comprehend anything. Good faith went out the window when he continued to try to get the page deleted after multiple people told him it didn't qualify for G5.
Good faith went out the window when he suggested it be deleted and replaced with his "far superior version"
Good faith went out the window when he didn't get his way and he overwrote the page with his own content
Good faith went out the window when he did it again after being warned against it by an admin.
Good faith went out the window when after all that he still made edits saying 'his were better"
Good faith went out the window when he 'apologized' a million times and still broke the rules.
Good faith went out the window when he begged his way out of a relatively short one week ban just to immediately go and remove content without building consensus on the talk page knowing full well his edits would be viewed as controversial.
And I'm the one with flaws in my behavior? My "overly-hostile" attitude is 100% warranted. You guys over coddling this editor is why he thinks he can do what he's doing. I've seen editors get banned for weeks and months for the agenda setting he took part in. You give a mouse a cookie he's going to want a glass of milk. He's got you both wrapped around his finger to the point of being comical. I'm done discussing this. If the editor wants to add something he needs to discuss it on the talk page first and build consensus with other editors before things are added or removed. His conflict of interest dictates that, that's Wikipedia 101. And by consensus, I don't mean agreement from you and Cabayi as you both have very clear conflicts of interest as well. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in your screed above do I see where you actually assumed good faith. So what's your plan, exactly? Is it to claim article ownership and stonewall every change that Kailash attempts to make? If the film release date changes, will he need your permission to make that change? And since you've unilaterally decided which editors cannot contribution an opinion, can you please provide a list of editors you deem acceptable to contributing to consensus? Do you have any other demands that you'd be willing to codify in list form? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, both my posts here have invited you to consider the edits, not the editor. I'm glad that you're now at the point that you've exhausted the ad hominem arguments. Would you now give us a considered argument why the last edit needed to be reverted? The version you restored favours the Tamil version over the Telugu, an issue which was corrected in the reverted version. Cabayi (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi, No, because it makes zero sense for me to consider the edits as I have an inherent conflict of interest. Just as everyone else does here. Kailish should feel free to edit the page after consensus is arrived by editors without a COI. Again, that's Wikipedia 101 WP:COI. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Above, Sulfurboy refused to explain he found objectionable about Kailash's post, other than it was made by Kailash during what he erroneously thought was an active block. Sulfurboy also (erroneously) thinks that Kailash's "punishment" should have been more substantial, (which we know is not the purpose of blocks) and stonewalling Kailash's edits is just a way to bust his bollocks, which feels a lot like wiki-hounding to me. Kailash is not presently forbidden from editing the article, and he shouldn't have to run his edits past a gatekeeper unless the specific changes are controversial, which, other than the ethnicity order and long quotes, doesn't seem to include anything else. I think Kailash should be free to make uncontroversial changes, but wouldn't mind having other admins evaluate the situation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
