User talk:Shiva Oswal

Removing affiliation of a top scorer

What was the purpose of this edit? Jonah (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2019 (CDT)

Ok, this has been fixed.

Luke Tierney

This edit removed information that, contra your comment, is extremely relevant to quizbowl. It may not have been written in the ideal tone, and you're welcome to adjust that while retaining the key parts (viz., the links). Jonah (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2021 (CDT)

I don't spend a lot of time trolling through my previous edits, so I only saw this just now. Would you care to elaborate on your statement that my changes were "a hateful, politically motivated rant"?^[1]

-Kevin Wang (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2021 (CDT)

Do you have any updates on this? -Kevin Wang (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2021 (CDT)

No not really. I think the original version was fairly hateful towards Tuhin, although it wasn't politically motivated or anything. - Shiva Oswal (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2021 (CDT)

That's not what this message was in response to. -Kevin Wang (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2021 (CDT)

Tuhin Chakraborty

On this article, you seem to have implemented an editorial policy of removing any information that Tuhin objects to, and making yourself the arbiter of what things are "big deals". This has resulted in you removing a lot of information from the article, which was also the subject of the two prior warnings I have given you (higher up on this page). Given that this is a major issue in the quiz bowl community, the original article was fairly well sourced, and the writers of the removed content have not yet had a chance to respond to the claims Tuhin made (though I just nudged them)—and given your position, I question whether it is prudent for you to be whitewashing the article so thoroughly. Jonah (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2021 (CDT)

Also, I just noticed you inserted the victim's name. Do not ever do that again. Jonah (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (CDT)

Vishal Rameshbabu

Can you please address the concerns raised about this edit? When documenting problematic behavior, it is advisable to provide citations or other supporting evidence. The purpose of the QBWiki is not to adjudicate such issues (and extended debates on such matters won't be tolerated), but it is fine (and good) to document established information. If Vishal has in fact admitted to cheating, it should be straightforward to cite that (e.g., via screenshots). Thanks! Jonah (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2021 (CDT)

Hello Jonah,

I've run into a pretty significant issue regarding Vishal. The primary evidence, where he confessed to cheating, was in a discord server that has been deleted, and thus the evidence has been lost.

However, there is tons of secondary evidence spread across the QB world. How exactly should I proceed, without comprising the policies of the QB Wiki?

Shiva Oswal (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2021 (CDT)

Well, that's disappointing. Perhaps a clear identification of the context (which server/channel, approximate date/time, as near as you can come to his actual words) would help. Are other people able to corroborate the claim that he admitted to cheating? Is there evidence of his cheating from the event(s) at which it allegedly took place, and what do the directors of such events have to say? Have reports been made to any major organizations or otherwise in public besides here?

The message you quoted about ADHD does not necessarily sound to me like a justification. I think it can also be read as an explanation for why Vishal's behavior allegedly looked suspicious (without cheating in the middle of that chain of implication). I do not know whether that is what he intended, nor do I know the context for that quote, nor do I mean to suggest that he didn't cheat (or did), I am just proposing a reading of that statement that (again, without context) I think is plausible.

Finally, as you can see, I moved your response to this page; I'd like to try to keep the entire conversation in one place so it is easier to follow. Thanks! Jonah (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2021 (CDT)

Dead-naming

When someone has created a page for themselves under a new name, redirects their previous page to the new one, and edits all links to use that new name, what makes you think you should edit the new page to include their old name? There is no middle ground here, these were not changes made on behalf of a third party - this was someone who specifically changed their own page and you thought you knew better than them. It is unspeakably rude that you would do something like this, and to phrase it as if their new name is a nickname or something - what is wrong with you? -Kevin Wang (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2021 (CDT)