The result was no consensus. The strongest argument I saw on either side was from @ Lankiveil:, who said WP:Trout-- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Highly defamatory article, no such sect exists , used as a bad word against a claimant to the post of the successor of dawoodi bohras Summichum ( talk) 08:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I am the unfortunate author of this article. Ever since i wrote this article an editor named Ftutocdg has vandalised this article a number of times, just because of some pov of his regarding Khuzaima Qutbuddin. He is not only vandalised this article but then he also put it for deletion. He gave pointless and repetative arguments and concluded every time with same repeated questions. Even at AFD he repeatedly vandalised the article. Now he has tied up with summichum, who has not only heavily tagged the article but also has put the article for deletion again. The last time when at AFD i had answered to all their queries. The AFD was longer than the article. I have also mentioned all the details on talk page.
But here they go again, another AFD? They are using the very instruments that help write a good article, against the article as a weapon to get the article deleted. And this time it seem they have gathered their friends together for the article is getting one delete after another.
Are there nobody in Wikipedia to reprimand them. Are there nobody to correct such destructive behavior of theirs. They are not only after this article but against all articles that are connected to Khuzaima Qutbuddin. It seems that they want to change the view of the world regarding Khuzaima Qutbuddin by adding or substracting him in the different articles of Wikipedia.
From the time i have come to Wikipedia, my intentions were to make as much contribution to Wikipedia as possible, but here i am defending articles, not once, not twice but everyday, everytime i login i have to first check if these vandals have done any harm to the article or not.
I again assert that i have mentioned answers to all the queries in the talk pages and now all the twenty references are valid references. Further the issue of succession that Ftutocdg and his chum has mentioned about is given in detail in succession issue. I hope editors discuss this article in the light of its content and not by the mention of the characters in the article.
I appologize for the harsh language. I don't mean to hurt anyone, just opened my heart, it had become too heavy. Araz5152 ( talk) 20:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Ftutocdg's claim that the article is defamatory is completely false and i have already proved it in the last AFD and in the talk pages.
Furthermore the article has more than 20 reliable references, not mentioned by Ftutocdg. The name Qutbi Bohra is clearly mentioned in the references mentioned and hence all the claims of Ftutocdg are false.
And he himself proves how wrong and false his concerns for the article. Just check out the article link he has given which he wants to put up. It contains just 5 sentences and makes no sense. That is the level of vandalisation they had done to the article not once but many times. They have blanked the article a number of times even when it was at AFD last time. The only thing they are concerned with is their pov over Khuzaima Qutbuddin. They, Ftutocdg and summichum, are not at all concerned with the article or the reality but just want to get the article deleted or blanked out or whatever they can to get it out of Wikipedia. I repeat that they have this amazing pov that they could change the way the world looks at Khuzaima Qutbuddin by adding or deleting his name in the articles of Wikipedia. They have been doing this for some time now with many articles on Wikipedia.
I again would like to assert that:
I have answered to all the queries of Ftutocdg in the last AFD and in talk pages. I request editors to please understand the pov of Ftutocdg and discuss with him accordingly. Araz5152 ( talk) 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor Sam sailor has been continously deleting and modifying references of the article just like a child playing with a toy. Just see the amount of manupulations he has done and after deleting 12 references till now, he is still continuing he claims that i am doing edit war. He is the one vandalising the references and also voted for the articles removal, clearly showing his intentions regarding the article. I request the administors to take his vandalism seriously as he is using a loophole in the system by making small vandalising edits and also modifying the same such that if reverted the will accuse the reverting editor instead of the vandaliser like Sam sailor. Please do the needful, request to all editors.
After removing the references he has also labeled article for citation needed etc.
And the article he is refering to in the AFD has just 5sentences and is a highly vandalised version of the article. This shows the intention of this editor Sam sailor. I request Wikipedia authorities to do the needful as soon as possible. Araz5152 ( talk) 06:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
What an irony? The very policies that are used to protect articles on Wikipedia are been exploited by some editors and nobody at Wikipedia can do anything. Nobody has any rights to stop editors who go on a rampage over an article just because of some pov of theirs, using the very policies of Wikipedia used to protect articles. I guess there is no system of checking the edits of such editors against vandalisation such that they can blatantly claim that whatever you report to authorities nobody is going to listen. This is not according to Wikipedia standards and also not healthy with respect to protection of articles on Wikipedia.
Anyway still it is a huge effort by Wikipedia to maintain such a huge collection of articles, it does not matter if a few articles get deleted or vandalised or removed from Wikipedia just because some pov of some editors. I understand to gain something one has to loose something. It is perfectly alright for all administrators and other authorities not to do anything and watch an article getting ripped of part by part. After all Wikipedia is with all, by all and for all. So nobody takes any responsibility. My sympathies are with the policies of Wikipedia. Thank you. Araz5152 ( talk) 07:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The strongest argument I saw on either side was from @ Lankiveil:, who said WP:Trout-- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Highly defamatory article, no such sect exists , used as a bad word against a claimant to the post of the successor of dawoodi bohras Summichum ( talk) 08:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I am the unfortunate author of this article. Ever since i wrote this article an editor named Ftutocdg has vandalised this article a number of times, just because of some pov of his regarding Khuzaima Qutbuddin. He is not only vandalised this article but then he also put it for deletion. He gave pointless and repetative arguments and concluded every time with same repeated questions. Even at AFD he repeatedly vandalised the article. Now he has tied up with summichum, who has not only heavily tagged the article but also has put the article for deletion again. The last time when at AFD i had answered to all their queries. The AFD was longer than the article. I have also mentioned all the details on talk page.
But here they go again, another AFD? They are using the very instruments that help write a good article, against the article as a weapon to get the article deleted. And this time it seem they have gathered their friends together for the article is getting one delete after another.
Are there nobody in Wikipedia to reprimand them. Are there nobody to correct such destructive behavior of theirs. They are not only after this article but against all articles that are connected to Khuzaima Qutbuddin. It seems that they want to change the view of the world regarding Khuzaima Qutbuddin by adding or substracting him in the different articles of Wikipedia.
From the time i have come to Wikipedia, my intentions were to make as much contribution to Wikipedia as possible, but here i am defending articles, not once, not twice but everyday, everytime i login i have to first check if these vandals have done any harm to the article or not.
I again assert that i have mentioned answers to all the queries in the talk pages and now all the twenty references are valid references. Further the issue of succession that Ftutocdg and his chum has mentioned about is given in detail in succession issue. I hope editors discuss this article in the light of its content and not by the mention of the characters in the article.
I appologize for the harsh language. I don't mean to hurt anyone, just opened my heart, it had become too heavy. Araz5152 ( talk) 20:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Ftutocdg's claim that the article is defamatory is completely false and i have already proved it in the last AFD and in the talk pages.
Furthermore the article has more than 20 reliable references, not mentioned by Ftutocdg. The name Qutbi Bohra is clearly mentioned in the references mentioned and hence all the claims of Ftutocdg are false.
And he himself proves how wrong and false his concerns for the article. Just check out the article link he has given which he wants to put up. It contains just 5 sentences and makes no sense. That is the level of vandalisation they had done to the article not once but many times. They have blanked the article a number of times even when it was at AFD last time. The only thing they are concerned with is their pov over Khuzaima Qutbuddin. They, Ftutocdg and summichum, are not at all concerned with the article or the reality but just want to get the article deleted or blanked out or whatever they can to get it out of Wikipedia. I repeat that they have this amazing pov that they could change the way the world looks at Khuzaima Qutbuddin by adding or deleting his name in the articles of Wikipedia. They have been doing this for some time now with many articles on Wikipedia.
I again would like to assert that:
I have answered to all the queries of Ftutocdg in the last AFD and in talk pages. I request editors to please understand the pov of Ftutocdg and discuss with him accordingly. Araz5152 ( talk) 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor Sam sailor has been continously deleting and modifying references of the article just like a child playing with a toy. Just see the amount of manupulations he has done and after deleting 12 references till now, he is still continuing he claims that i am doing edit war. He is the one vandalising the references and also voted for the articles removal, clearly showing his intentions regarding the article. I request the administors to take his vandalism seriously as he is using a loophole in the system by making small vandalising edits and also modifying the same such that if reverted the will accuse the reverting editor instead of the vandaliser like Sam sailor. Please do the needful, request to all editors.
After removing the references he has also labeled article for citation needed etc.
And the article he is refering to in the AFD has just 5sentences and is a highly vandalised version of the article. This shows the intention of this editor Sam sailor. I request Wikipedia authorities to do the needful as soon as possible. Araz5152 ( talk) 06:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
What an irony? The very policies that are used to protect articles on Wikipedia are been exploited by some editors and nobody at Wikipedia can do anything. Nobody has any rights to stop editors who go on a rampage over an article just because of some pov of theirs, using the very policies of Wikipedia used to protect articles. I guess there is no system of checking the edits of such editors against vandalisation such that they can blatantly claim that whatever you report to authorities nobody is going to listen. This is not according to Wikipedia standards and also not healthy with respect to protection of articles on Wikipedia.
Anyway still it is a huge effort by Wikipedia to maintain such a huge collection of articles, it does not matter if a few articles get deleted or vandalised or removed from Wikipedia just because some pov of some editors. I understand to gain something one has to loose something. It is perfectly alright for all administrators and other authorities not to do anything and watch an article getting ripped of part by part. After all Wikipedia is with all, by all and for all. So nobody takes any responsibility. My sympathies are with the policies of Wikipedia. Thank you. Araz5152 ( talk) 07:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)