Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drbalaji md

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 10:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

(Drbalaji md | Talk | Contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.

Description:

User has contributed helpful content to Coca-Cola, but also added some which Johnleemk felt were questionable (some of them as an anon). The edits in question were rolled back and an explanation was added on the user's talk by Johnleemk. The user responded by calling Johnleemk a self-styled king and decried Wikipedia's admins as "morons" as well as claiming an abuse of Johnleemk's power as sysop. Johnleemk responded on the user's talk.

User then added edits which do not follow the manual of style and which biased the article by bolding negative phrases about Coca-Cola, and then made a note of it on the talk. Johnleemk removed much of the previous edit and moved some content elsewhere in the article, and then explained on the Talk his reasoning. Drbalaji then responded claiming Johnleemk was an idiot, and refused to make any further major edits to the article. Johnleemk responded, at one point using the word "ass".

Ganesh then responded, noting that profanity is prohibited in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia:Profanity. Ganesh also noted that it appeared Johnleemk was at fault and demanded an apology from Johnleemk, while encouraging Drbalaji to continue contributing.

Johnleemk responded with a long-winded argument, which was in turn replied to by Flagfanatic, decrying Johnleemk for his use of the terms Dubya and "Georgie boy" in reference to George W. Bush. Johnleemk responded somewhat hotly and suggested the argument be brought to a close as it no longer had anything to do with Coca-Cola.

At the same time, Jay brought up the fact that Coke being banned in India did not have any references. chocolateboy then noted that there was no credible evidence for it, and it was used as a bargaining chip to buy the removal an unsupported generalisation from the intro that Coke was junk food. Ganesh responded that it was unquestionable that Coke is junk food. Chocolateboy rebutted that argument and responded to ganesh's query on who wrote the offending line regarding Coke's ban from India. Chocolateboy and ganesh continued to debate the matter.

After a while chocolateboy brought up the fact that Drbalaji and ganesh had similar styles of writing and that they shared the same IP. Ganesh claimed it was diverting the discussion on Coke. Drbalaji then responded that this vindicated his opinion of Wikipedia. Chocolateboy insisted there were remarkable similarities between the two.

Johnleemk proceeded to say that both ganesh and Drbalaji had voted on WP:FAC (in the nomination for Air India), and this could prove to be illegal if they were indeed sockpuppets. He also noted that Flagfanatic's first edit was to Talk:Coca-Cola. Ganesh claimed such allegations about him and Drbalaji were baseless and that chocolateboy was suppressing the facts and being POVed. He then proceeded to claim Johnleemk and chocolateboy were abusing their power as sysops when chocolateboy was not even one.

Drbalaji ended the discussion with saying both he and ganesh used the same computers often and often met in person, and noted that chocolateboy and Johnleemk seemed to have a better future in investigative journalism than in building Wikipedia, and in reply to ganesh, that he had already expressed his "valuable opinion" on those "self-styled kings".

Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):

Applicable policies:

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):

Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):

Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

My interactions with this user have all been horrible:

I first noticed him making edits on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates that completely destroyed the formatting (by adding comments to the middle of a list with no asterisks, not signing them, etc etc). I left a comment on his talk page. He removed it and left me a rather snide comment on my talk page.
The next time I noticed him was when I went to clean out the FAC and I saw his nomination of Mount Everest. (For the record, most of his comments have been cleaned up so that the formatting is not broken. His comments were fixed by others, after he refused to show the basic courtesy of not breaking the page layout). Notice he is condescending, and make no attempt at all to fix objections. Also, all of his responses are broad philosphical statements with little/no underlying reasoning or relavance (all of these are recurring themes with his comments)
Next were the discussions on talk:main page (now located on this talk page User talk:Drbalaji md). They're long discussions, but as Bkonrad summarized them: "Drbalaji raised some questions, and Raul attempted to respond (perhaps just a little snippishly at times, but overall with, IMO, considerable patience) and to try and catch Drbalaji up on things that have been discussed ad naseum previously. Drbalaji responded with baseless provocation and things degenerated from there."
My interactions with this user convince me that he is a troll-in-the-making. In addition to being ignorant of policies (while claming he is not a newbie), he is condescending, rude, and "apparently doesn't read what others say when they debunk his broad philosophical decrees" ([4]) because he keeps saying them (with no supporting reasoning, of course) despite having been shown why they're wrong several times - for example, claminging that the FAC should be voted on, after (1) having been told that they're voted on. and (2) having made a nomination there. →Raul654 16:49, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) - (I'd also like to add that I am concerned additionally with this user's attitude, especially this quote, from his talk page: "This dictatorship and beaurocracy, is exactly what I intend to fight against." - Fight against? Reminds me of some folks I know... some vandals! Wik comes to mind.)
RickK 19:15, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC) - pretty cleary he and Vbganesh are the same person or working in concert, and are trolls.
DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:33, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Ambivalenthysteria 00:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Drbalaji md 23:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC): This guy, drbalaji_md, deserves to be booted out of this sytem, mighty comrades! He projects stinging truths to everybody in broad day light! And he is fearless. How dare? How can he not fear these mighty comrades? That in itself, is a crime. Also, he has never targeted individual users although his comments kindle their consciences, how mean? And he has never done any pre-emptive strikes. This is not fashionable today :) He could have used profanity like comrade johnleemk or straighforward anger like comrade raul. By the way, I am very happy that a democratic process finally happens, atleast here, in my name. And assumptions are a sign of budding genius (your mentioning of both me and vbganesh being the same). Please keep it up. Unfortunately, I have resolved that 'mystery', a while ago, in that coca cola talk page :)Thanks for adding a new word to my vocabulary (troll = bringing injustice to light). --Drbalaji md 23:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Stop misrepresenting our words. Either you are very ignorant or intentionally trolling, because only a fool would not be able to comprehend what we've told you a few dozen times. We are not intimidating you. There is no cabal. Calling people "self-styled king" is not exactly a comment not targeted towards an individual. And what about the blanket attack on all admins? And our anger is justified — you are taunting us, breaking page formatting, posting comments on wrong pages, misrepresenting our views and intentionally pretending not to understand what we're telling you. Last but not least, these are not assumptions, but allegations. If they really are wrong, write up your story in the Response section. Don't expect people who don't know what's going on to wade through dozens of Talk pages just to get a summary of what's happening. Oh, and by the way: Thanks for posting that comment about me on Talk:Main page. It had a lot to do with the main page, and really contributed to everyone's understanding of this dispute; indeed, so much that I moved it to your Talk page. Our opinion of you is at an all-time high. Keep up the good work! Johnleemk | Talk 11:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Exasperating. older≠wiser 13:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.