> Hinduism has a pope!

Amarkov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Brahmanical_See

Apparently, an article existed for three and a half years, telling readers that there are bishop-like people in Hinduis. Now, this is pretty clearly false. But on Wikipedia, this doesn't matter, because articles can exist off in their own little world, with nobody intelligent ever seeing them. And while it's fairly innocuous in this case, the same thing could happen to a biography.

Makes you wonder how many other Seigenthalers there are, unaware that they were implicated in the shooting of John Paul II.

Proabivouac

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 24th January 2008, 5:57am)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Brahmanical_See

Apparently, an article existed for three and a half years, telling readers that there is a pope in Hinduism. Now, anyone who knows anything at all about Hindus could tell you that this is absurd. But on Wikipedia, this doesn't matter, because articles can exist off in their own little world, with nobody intelligent ever seeing them. And while it's fairly innocuous in this case, the same thing could happen to a biography.

Makes you wonder how many other Seigenthalers there are, unaware that they were implicated in the shooting of John Paul II.

Or people who don't exist at all, like the 'Brahamanical See." If the person doesn't exist, after all, there's no one to complain.

Wikipedia has far too many articles relative to the number of people checking them. I'm tempted to say that with BLPs, it's a bigger problem, and from a certain perspective it isâ€¦but if someone walked away from Wikipedia thinking that there is a Hindu pope, we've done that person a truly grave disservice.

My question is, who is responsible for this fraud being perpetuated on the public? Which arbitrator, administrator or Wikimedia employee was responsible for making sure that this particular page was accurate, and blew it so badly? The answer encapsulates maybe half of what's wrong with Wikipedia: power is utterly decoupled from responsibility.

With biographies of living persons, I'd suggested that none be allowed to exist unless three (?) trusted contributors sign a commitment to keep it compliant with policy (minimally, well-referenced and accurate on every point) and free of vandalism within a certain timeframe (say, 24 hours). If no one signed, or if all that number of signatories don't respond to inquiries, the article must be immediately deleted, to be recreated only if and when guarantors can be found. If this wasn't done, or if it was done unacceptably shabbily, the contributors lose that trust level, which would be a sign of statusâ€¦maybe even accompanied with powers such as the ability to block blatant vandals with under a certain number of edits or to semiprotect the articleâ€¦maybe even a prerequisite to full adminship and to retaining adminship.

On reflection, it really should be every article, or at least a distinction should be drawn, such that articles without it have a big banner at the top by default, stating that anything or everything in it might be false. Getting that banner down would be the first step on the article rating system.

Such banners would, to some degree, protect hapless readers from being misinformed by Wikipedia.

Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Wed 23rd January 2008, 11:57pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Brahmanical_See

Apparently, an article existed for three and a half years, telling readers that there is a pope in Hinduism. Now, anyone who knows anything at all about Hindus could tell you that this is absurd. But on Wikipedia, this doesn't matter, because articles can exist off in their own little world, with nobody intelligent ever seeing them. And while it's fairly innocuous in this case, the same thing could happen to a biography.

Makes you wonder how many other Seigenthalers there are, unaware that they were implicated in the shooting of John Paul II.

Does anyone have a cache of this. It is hilarious.

OK, here:

QUOTE

Brahmanical See
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brahmanical See refers to the domain of certain Hindu leaders in the Indian subcontinent. Because it is essentially an Anglicized term (compare episcopal see), this nomenclature has begun to fall into disuse.[1]

Much like the former Indian principalities, which varied in scale from small estates to vast kingdoms, the brahmanical sees range from minor parishes to quasi-states.

With Hinduism itself lacking any central organizing institutions, it is common for brahmanical sees to geographically overlap with one another, just as the sees of different Christian denominations can coexist within a shared geography.[2]

A religious leader over a Brahmanical See is typically known as a maharaj, or in European terms, a prince of the faith. The office is generally passed down the generations in the male line within an extended family, though not necessarily from father to son.

Again, similar to the tensions which existed in medieval Europe between the papacy and the aristocracy, tensions between the brahmanical maharajs and the royal maharajas constantly were an issue throughout much of the history of India. The brahmanical maharajs could bestow or withhold the legitimacy without which royal maharajas could not reign, and the royal maharajas could extend or withdraw the military protection without which brahmanical maharajs might not survive.[3]

The longest established brahmanical sees are the Brahmanical See of Rajasthan (which contains a large number of kingdoms), the Brahmanical See of Mysore (whose borders are coterminal with those of the Kingdom of Mysore), and the Brahmanical See of Dabra (which is one of several sees contained within the Kingdom of Gwalior).

With the dissolution of the old kingdoms and the coming of modernity, the importance of the brahmanical sees declined sharply in the last quarter century. The see of Rajasthan is now held by an Indo-Canadian, the see of Mysore is disputed by three claimants, and the see of Dabra has been allowed to lapse entirely.

[edit] References

1. ^ "Brahmanical Ideology, Regional Identities and the Construction of Early India", Social Scientist, Vol. 29-7, Bhairabi Prasad Sahu
2. ^ Brahmanism and Hinduism, Sir Monier Monier Williams, 1891
3. ^ "Brahmans and the Legitimation of Hindu Kingship", Man, New Series, Vol. 27-4, Norbert Peabody, C. J. Fuller, Adrian C. Mayer

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmanical_See"

Categories: Anti-Hinduism

It was "Part of a series on Hinduism"

Mirrors

QUOTE

Brahmanical See (Hinduism) - Religion Dictionary and Research Guide
Brahmanical See - Brahmanical See refers to the domain of certain Hindu leaders in the Indian subcontinent. Because it is essen.
www.123exp-beliefs.com/t/00804307800/ - 11k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

QUOTE

BRAHMANISM - Online Information article about BRAHMANISM
dogma of the Brahmanical period (see BRAHMAN) . ...... wisdom, and at the same time the leader of the dii minorum gentium . Orthodox Brahmanical See also: ...
encyclopedia.jrank.org/BOS_BRI/BRAHMANISM.html - 179k - Cached - Similar pages - Note
this

And here is where some poor bastard (Nexxt_1) got blocked and almost banned for editing and AFDing the "well referenced "Brahmanical See")

# 4 Vandalism of Brahmanical See

QUOTE

Brahmanical See

Please do not re add the {{prod}} tag to the page.(see WP:PROD) If you want the article deleted, please use an articles for deletion discussion instead. If you have any questions please ask at the the help desk or me(though I may not be online). Thanks! -01:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, please remember to remain civil at all times. SmileTodayâ˜º(talk to me , My edits) 01:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

After the expiry of his/her 24 hour block for vandalising this page by blanking, the vandal Nexxt 1 has reprised vandalism by adding the {{prod}} tag to the page and fraudulently backdating the tag start date by five days or more, in an attempt to trigger immediate deletion (e.g. in a 13 October 2007 edit, he/she added the tag with the start date of 8 October 2007). The vandal has repeated the abuse of the {{prod}} tag despite being warned on his/her talk page (see above). The vandal has been concurrently warned for actions on other pages. Devout 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE

Blocked
You have been blocked for 1 week for disruptive editing. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Caknuck 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued Vandalism

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

You have previously received a 24-hour block and a 1-week block for vandalism. In this first edit (using the account Nexxt 1) since the expiration of your last block, you have repeated your actions. Please cease immediately. Devout 23:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Devout is an obvious sock with only 17 or so edits, who continually harassed the poor Nexxt_1 for "incivility" and "disruptive editing" for trying to get rid of a false article. CLASSIC.

QUOTE
After the expiry of his/her 24 hour block for vandalising this page by blanking, the vandal Nexxt 1 has reprised vandalism by adding the {{tl|prod}} tag to the page and fraudulently backdating the tag start date by five days or more, in an attempt to trigger immediate deletion (e.g. in an 8 October 2007 edit, he/she added the tag with the start date of 13 October 2007). The vandal has repeated the abuse of the {{tl|prod}} tag despite being warned on his/her talk page (see above). The vandal has been concurrently warned for actions on other pages. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WHAT a bunch of morons.

Disillusioned Lackey

WAIT

NO WAY

Nexxt_1 got indefinitely BLOCKED as a result of this nonsense!!

ROFL over and over. Poor Nexxt_1!!!

Ok. We all **know** that "Devout" is a cabalist, using a "non-legal, quasi-legal-for-admins" sock. And he/she is probably 15 or 16 years old, and has no idea how to research (assuming it isn't David Gerard, or some facsimile thereof), and banned poor Nexxt_1. Imagine if Nexxt_1 was a professor of religious studies, and had used their real name. So typical of Wikipedia!!!

coup de grace,
aka
"Administrator Intervention against vandalism (against Nexxt 1, for trying to remove Brahmanical See)

QUOTE
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Alerts

Bot-reported

User-reported

* Nexxt 1 (talk Â· contribs Â· deleted contribs Â· logs Â· block user Â· block log) The vandal has received previous 24-hour and 1-week suspensions for multiple vandalisation of Brahmanical See through abuse of the {{prod}} tag: he/she fraudulently backdates the tag start date by five days or more, in an attempt to trigger immediate deletion of the article (e.g. in an 05 December 2007 edit, he/she added the tag with a false start date of 13 October 2007). He/she has now reprised this same abuse, despite being again warned. He/she has also blanked his/her own talk page, in an apparent attempt to hide the most recent warnings and record of suspensions. Devout (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Thu 24th January 2008, 8:54pm)

Nexxt_1 got indefinitely BLOCKED as a result of this nonsense!!

ROFL over and over. Poor Nexxt_1!!!

Given that we now know what we know, how about this - especially 1:

QUOTE

Summary of violations by Nexxt 1

(1) The article Brahmanical See (prior to blanking violations by Nexxt 1) has been fully cited, using citations from peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

(2) The page has already been approved for retention by the Wikipedia community, after sock-puppet attempts by the vandal Nexxt 1 (posing as "Neel0110" and "DeletionBOT") to have it deleted on 18 May 2007.

(3) The vandal is blanking the entire page, replacing it with a single unsourced statement.

(4) The vandal purports that the term does not have any meaning, but attributes a self-styled and unsourced racist meaning to in his/her acts of vandalism.

(5) The vandal Nexxt 1 has a demonstrated history of vandalizing other pages, as shown from warnings from multiple users in his/her discussion page above.

(6) The vandal Nexxt 1 has continued his/her behaviour despite being fully and repeatedly warned, with escalating warnings, including a final warning.

Devout 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Disillusioned Lackey

As hilarious as this is, I can't help but feel sorry for poor Nexxt_1

QUOTE

Block Log

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

* 05:17, 5 December 2007 Nlu (Talk | contribs) blocked "Nexxt 1 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite â€Ž (Vandalism)
* 14:30, 19 October 2007 Caknuck (Talk | contribs) blocked "Nexxt 1 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week â€Ž (Disruptive editing)
* 22:29, 8 October 2007 Persian Poet Gal (Talk | contribs) blocked "Nexxt 1 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours â€Ž (repeatedly vandalizing the Brahmanical See article and inserting unsource edits)

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

For Wikipedia's "sake" I hope they carpet-blocked/perma-banned the entire region of the state, or country, from which the hapless Nexxt_1 came. Just to be really professional about it. Rofl.

Of course, apologies are due from the ignorami Nlu, Caknuck and Persian Poet Girl - the latter of which,

wrote the lovely essay, "Why Vandalism is Silly".

Sounds like a Durova in training. Hey PPG even went to the same USC film school as Durova. (scratches chin.... hmmmmm....)

Proabivouac

QUOTE

Hello, I am the user Nexxt 1, who has been banned from editing the article 'Brahmanical See'. The article uses a term which no scholar has ever used before and it is derogatory against the Brahmin peoples of India. Tell the other users on the article to stop adding material without that makes no reference WHATSOEVER of the term 'Brahmanical See'. [[User:Nexxt 1|Nexxt 1]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163428021

Previously I was banned for a week because I was "vandalizing" the article "[[Brahmanical See]]" which uses false references. Why did you ban me?? -- [[user talk: Nexxt 1|Nexxt 1]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=175825861

Good questions, still unanswered.

jorge

I think Nexxt needs to be unbanned.

Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(jorge @ Thu 24th January 2008, 3:46pm)

I think Nexxt needs to be unbanned.

And I think that someone, not me, needs to send a "sweet note of cheer" to Nlu, Caknuck and Persian Poet Girl.

You know, Nexxt_1 wont be unbanned, because he/she was "uncivil", lol

QUOTE
Do you even have a clue how to monitor articles?

Previously I was banned for a week because I was "vandalizing" the article "Brahmanical See" which uses false references. Why did you ban me?? -- Nexxt 1

That question led to a permanent ban.

Of course, it was a logical question™, asked by an obviously frustrated person. But he/she insulted the vanity of an admin (and one who attended USC film school, which as we know produces the finest, and most vain admins on the planet, with matchless finely honed linguistic sleuthing skills).

Proabivouac

QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Thu 24th January 2008, 11:06pm)

You know, Nexxt_1 wont be unbanned, because he/she was "uncivil", lol

If the integrity of the encyclopedia were properly valued, we'd see one or more desysopings.

Disillusioned Lackey

QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 24th January 2008, 5:26pm)

If the integrity of the encyclopedia were properly valued, we'd see one or more desysopings.

Ah! A true believer still exists!

More seriously, I wouldn't think to desysop the persons, but to have some kind of discussion about how things went down so it's not repeated. So that it becomes a "learning experience not to be repeated".

But (ahem) That's in a perfect world, where clean self-examination was normal. Which it isn't. So I'm one of the true believers too. Or rather, one who has an idea of what would be better practice, which is not practiced.

The "lessons learned" exercise should be replete with apoloties to Nexxt_1.

(insert canned laughter here. The day an apology comes from a Walesian organization is the day hell freezes over).
Recall that even !! didn't get an apology. He/she got "encouraged" by Arbcom. Apologies are verboten chez Wikipedia.

Devout almost looked to be a vandal. But I'm thinking it is an admin, doing the dirty with a dirty sock. FORUM Image

everyking

It goes almost without saying that Nexxt needs to be unbanned promptly and those involved in mistreating him need to profusely apologize. At the moment he is still blocked and there have been no apologies. It will be utterly disgraceful if that does not change.

Amarkov

Unfortunately, he doesn't have an email address registered or anything. I'd start a discussion if I could contact him, but usually discussions to unblock people who haven't asked themselves are viewed badly.

everyking

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sat 26th January 2008, 2:26am)

Unfortunately, he doesn't have an email address registered or anything. I'd start a discussion if I could contact him, but usually discussions to unblock people who haven't asked themselves are viewed badly.

I didn't know people had developed that idea. It can be assumed automatically that a person wants to be unblocked; you don't need to wait for them to ask, especially not in a case of blatant injustice.

michael

Holy shit. Someone tried to PROD this article way back in May, someone opposed, and it wasn't taken to AFD until seven months later. W-O-W.

Amarkov

As we're talking about above, it's not just that someone opposed. The person who proposed deletion was eventually banned for insisting that the article made no sense.

Proabivouac

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Sat 26th January 2008, 2:01am)

As we're talking about above, it's not just that someone opposed. The person who proposed deletion was eventually banned for insisting that the article made no sense.

We can draw one of two conclusions: either 1) the blocking administrators didn't really look at the content at issue, or 2) they looked and saw nothing wrong with it. Which is worse?

michael

To be honest, he was being incredibly disruptive on the article, with what appears to be 13 reverts spread over a spawn of two just over two months and repeated addings of the PROD tags. However, nobody even told him HOW to solve it - nobody told him to start an AFD discussion instead of repeated PRODs. He knows his way around - backdating the PROD and such - and someone did mention AFD in an edit summary, so I'm not sure why he kept reverting and such when an AFD discussion would have resulted in an unanimous delete - as such played out on 21-26 January 2008.

The worst part is that I'd have done the same. If I had encountered the article on my Special:Random forays, I would have seen it was referenced, looked OK - would have left it there. A very cleverly faked up reference that I didn't know where to check ("Brahmans and the Legitimation of Hindu Kingship", ''Man'', New Series, Vol. 27-4, Norbert Peabody, C. J. Fuller, Adrian C. Maye). To any non-expert, Nexxt was being a prick, deleting what appeared to be sourced information.

Wikipedia desperately needs experts to identify these kinds of hoaxes & improve articles in general. Even if someone were to unblock him right now, I doubt he'd ever come back, or know that he was unblocked given that he has no email address set.

everyking

QUOTE(michael @ Sat 26th January 2008, 5:54am)

To be honest, he was being incredibly disruptive on the article, with what appears to be 13 reverts spread over a spawn of two just over two months and repeated addings of the PROD tags. However, nobody even told him HOW to solve it - nobody told him to start an AFD discussion instead of repeated PRODs. He knows his way around - backdating the PROD and such - and someone did mention AFD in an edit summary, so I'm not sure why he kept reverting and such when an AFD discussion would have resulted in an unanimous delete - as such played out on 21-26 January 2008.

The worst part is that I'd have done the same. If I had encountered the article on my Special:Random forays, I would have seen it was referenced, looked OK - would have left it there. A very cleverly faked up reference that I didn't know where to check ("Brahmans and the Legitimation of Hindu Kingship", ''Man'', New Series, Vol. 27-4, Norbert Peabody, C. J. Fuller, Adrian C. Maye). To any non-expert, Nexxt was being a prick, deleting what appeared to be sourced information.

Wikipedia desperately needs experts to identify these kinds of hoaxes & improve articles in general. Even if someone were to unblock him right now, I doubt he'd ever come back, or know that he was unblocked given that he has no email address set.

I find it hard to apply the label "disruptive" to someone trying to get a hoax deleted, personally. What were all these people fighting him thinking? If you say something is not a hoax, you must actually know that it is not a hoax; you can't just make a presumption in favor of the article's accuracy when you haven't even seen the sources and know nothing about the subject.

It doesn't matter all that terribly much whether he comes back or not, but the question of having someone indefinitely blocked for pointing out a hoax is critical.

michael

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 25th January 2008, 10:42pm)

I find it hard to apply the label "disruptive" to someone trying to get a hoax deleted, personally. What were all these people fighting him thinking? If you say something is not a hoax, you must actually know that it is not a hoax; you can't just make a presumption in favor of the article's accuracy when you haven't even seen the sources and know nothing about the subject.

It doesn't matter all that terribly much whether he comes back or not, but the question of having someone indefinitely blocked for pointing out a hoax is critical.

Here's a sample of how Nexxt was trying to get his point across:

QUOTE

Nexxt PROD reason: This article uses uses a false term, "Brahmanical See"

Sounds dumb. Tempted to tag sofixit instead. This looks like a reason to simply move the article, not to outright delete it. He didn't say "hoax!!" or anything, just said it was a wrong term - not a wrong concept altogether.

QUOTE

Selected edit summaries from history of article

22:51, 3 December 2007 (diff) . . Nexxt 1 (Talk | contribs | block) (3,340 bytes) (discuss on discussion what vandalism is on this article exactly - this article makes ridiculous comments with NO REFERENCE!!!!!!)

21:10, 15 October 2007 (diff) . . Nexxt 1 (Talk | contribs | block) (3,056 bytes) (you are vandalizing the article, you cannot delete a Wiki tag)

06:21, 5 October 2007 (diff) . . Nexxt 1 (Talk | contribs | block) (208 bytes) (you are merely adding your own racist versions. There article does not make sense as the term does not exist! you have many references you say? Where)

01:43, 29 September 2007 (diff) . . Nexxt 1 (Talk | contribs | block) (154 bytes) (NO REFERENCES FOR PREVIOUS MATERIAL WAS GIVEN AT ALL!!!)

Meanwhile, SPA Devout is being very rationale, very sound. Take this one: "All references are listed in the "References" section of this article. Look them up. They are all scholarly, peer-reviewed articles." Devout opens up a talk page discussion about how Nexxt is vandalizing, again stating that they are scholarly, peer-reviewed articles.

Meanwhile Nexxt is just deleting away, and to any uninvolved administrator Nexxt sounds like a lunatic. He keeps removing text without definitively stating that "it's a hoax" or that the references are wrong (he says this once, but Devout keeps reverting). He doesn't put his own references up. And he keeps adding the frickin' PROD tag long after the deletion has been contested. He doesn't do talk page discussion, instead edit warring and trying to get it deleted by force, as well as calling Devout a "racist."

Please note (to anyone else): I think this is a legitimate discussion on the formation of a hoax article and how it survived for so long; more importantly, how the person trying to get it deleted was indefinitely blocked while the screw you SPA managed to play the game right and leave the article up for seven more months. I have not revealed the actual text of any deleted page. They do not contain any personal information. Thank you.

Disillusioned Lackey