Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-15 Indian Rebellion of 1857

Who are the involved parties?
, v/s.


 * Also -
 * - indefinitely blocked
 * - a perm-banned sockpuppet of ,

What's going on?
I (Josquius) make it NPOV, he starts shouting about British Imperialism and me being a vandal and makes the article more nationalist then ever before.


 * Constructive edits by other editors are reverted as "vandalism" - backed with personal attacks on talk pages - the page's talk page, as well as my user talk page both. Like, I am an ISP postmaster and he calls me a janitor of people's mailboxes. Well, happens that I do like the analogy, though I would prefer using one of pest control - something that all admins have to do, at ISPs or in Wikipedia :) srs 08:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
Demolitionman needs to figure out what NPOV is. Since anyone who disagrees with him is a big bad British bogey man in his eyes anything they say is of course imperialist propeganda.

I haven't even got onto trying to make the article itself NPOV due to him. He insists on saying in the infobox that the Indians were all patriotic freedom fighters. He also terms the infobox the 'Indian War of Independance' when there was a big debate over this ages ago which decided the rebllion of 1857 was a correct, neutral name.


 * It doesnt really matter to him. Or to others like User:Hkelkar who was perm banned for operating a series of sock and meat puppets last year. Abusing wikipedia's rules to create tendentious edits is something HKelkar was good at, Jvalant is not as subtle as he is, but well, given that he has already started using sockpuppets, he will probably learn .. srs 08:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Under normal circumstances I would be amused by these blatant lies. I've certainly not said that ALL Indians were Patriotic Freedom Fighters. I've even said that the term "Freedom Fighters" doesn't need to be in there. Like many other "wars of independence" pages, I've said that the combatants can "be termed "Indian Patriots" and/or "Indians Revolutionaries" since Wikipedia recommends not using "Freedom Fighter". Also, Josuquis is adamant to remove any information about Indian civilians aiding/taking part in the war. He is also adamant to put in that it is known as the "Indian Mutiny" everywhere else outside of the UK and India. This too is not the case as I asked him to prove by giving examples from Burkina Faso or East Timor.

"Fair enough. The word "Patriot" carries no such baggage and hence as I offered earlier, can be used as a compromise. DemolitionMan 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not my view vs. yours, no compromise is possible. This is a case of restoring NPOV. The version I have been trying to keep from the start is the compromise one. Go look at the articles on the Irish war of independance or the American Revolutionary War. Events in which far more of a case could be made to call the rebels freedom fighters yet it isn't done. NPOV prevails and only the facts are given.--Josquius 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It is a case of the NPOV vs your personal POV. In the Bangladesh War of Independence Mukti Bahini, directly meaning "Freedom Fighters" are listed as combatants, in the Greek War of Independence Greek revolutionaries are listed as combatants, in the Ecuadorian War of Independence the combatants are listed as Patriots, Venezuelan War of Independence lists the combatants as Patriots, Turkish War of Independence lists them as revolutionaries. Stop pushing an imperialist agenda of a has-been nation on Wikipedia. DemolitionMan 03:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)"

Josuquis followed it with the following question -

"I would like to see some sources from you which say the Indians were freedom fighters- that is of course REAL sources, of the ilk of the rebels themselves saying 'we are freedom fighters, we will overthrow the EIC and set up a Indian Republic!' A few people in modern India saying something does not make it fact--Josquius 10:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)"

This was the proof provided to him which he conveniently ignored

"Sure - You should have read the article before you started your nonsense.

"The sepoys did not seek to revive small kingdoms in their regions, instead they repeatedly proclaimed a "country-wide rule" of the Moghuls and vowed to drive out the British from "India", as they knew it then. (The sepoys ignored local princes and proclaimed in cities they took over: Khalq Khuda Ki, Mulk Badshah Ka, Hukm Subahdar Sipahi Bahadur Ka - i.e. the world belongs to God, the country to the Emperor and executive powers to the Sepoy Commandant in the city). The objective of driving out "foreigners" from not only one's own area but from their conception of the entirety of "India", signifies a nationalist sentiment""

Another proof provided was giving links to pics of these revolutionaries clearly showed as "freedom fighters" by the Indian Govt - by issuing stamps in their memory. My question was why hasn't the British govt objected to them being portrayed as freedom fighters if they were indeed merely rebels? Surely, if they could strongly condemn the President of Iran holding a conference of Holocaust deniers - they would have reacted to this as well. DemolitionMan 11:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen above Demolitionman is also quite partial to strawmen. I am not at all adament the war is known as the mutiny outside of India. In one edit which has nothing to do with the edit war he is waging against the article I simply changed that it was known as the mutiny in Britain to it is known as the mutiny elsewhere- that is the name we are taught in Ireland for one and as the article read the war simply didn't have a name anywhere other then India and Britain. Your proof wasn't proof at all, and I didn't ignore it I said something along the lines of "That isn't proof at all" This rubbish about "why hasn't the British government objected to the Indian stamps" thing is what really gets me. He says it time and again but I have no idea to what end. Even assuming for a minute Britain is ruled by the sort of fascist government he assumes- why would it matter what their opinion on a historical event is? Government opinion doesn't change facts.--Josquius 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, all we see are rantings - not proof. These are a few questions which need answering

1. The onus to prove that "Patriots" and "Revolutionaries" is NOT a legit NPOV is on Josuquis. If the word "patriot" and/or "revolutionaries" is acceptable in other "war of independence" pages, what is the basis of him refusing to acknowledge this on this page?

2. The UK and Ireland don't make up "elsewhere" outside of India. Surely, the views of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka etc. must also be taken into account. So does he have proof to back up the "elsewhere" statement?

I have a few others. But let's start with these ones. DemolitionMan 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is another little gem from Josuquis proving that he is hell-bent on pushing his British POV everywhere - this is from the Indian Independence Movement page

"Sorry to say this but...This article does make rather painful reading. It is really far too heavily slanted to the revisionist 'The British were evil occupiers who did no good and the freedom fighters who rose up against them were heroes!'. The truth of things though was one hell of a long way from this clear cut black and white. The article makes it sound as though the Indians who fought for the Japanese and Nazis were the 'proper' Indian army during the war who had the support of the general population, it reads like India forced the British withdrawal and Britain had no choice in the matter against overwhelming opposition"

I have a feeling that once he gets his way here, this page is his next stop to push the British POV. I agree that the British POV needs mention but err last I checked Wikipedia was meant to be neutral source and not a platform for the ideological grandstanding of the British Empire. DemolitionMan 07:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of 'far from black and white' says pro-British POV to you? And you are sinking worrying low here if you decide to trawl that far back in my history to try and find something you believe to be incriminating 1: No, that's not the way things work here. If someone decided to edit the page on cows to say 'many believe the cow is a sort of pig' then how would it be up to me to find a source that says 'a cow is not a pig'? The onus is on you to prove it is. Freedom fighters is without a doubt the Indian side of the debate. Not at all NPOV.2: Yes they do. Elsewhere != everywhere.--Josquius 05:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Well, that is an absurd analogy. A correct analogy would be that if the page on cow was edited to say "The Cow is a mammal" and provided tons of references to back this, you would still insist that "the cow is an animal so how can it be a mammal?" The onus of proving that it is not a mammal is on you. It's a lost cause really, because everyone knows that the cow is a mammal. "Freedom Fighters" doesn't need to be used as it is not allowed by Wikipedia - however, there is no such restriction on the word "Patriots" which is extensively used in Wikipedia. You even went ahead and deleted the "Patriots" reference after I pointed it out on the Venezuelan War of Independence page. However, them not being patriots or revolutionaries is exclusively a British POV and that is the one you are pushing.

2. They do? In Bangladesh? In Pakistan? In Sri Lanka? In Bhutan? In Nepal? In Suriname? In Mauritius? In Fiji? Surely, if you believe it so strongly you can provide sources for "elsewhere = everywhere". If you can't that leave it the way it is. If you can provide sources, I have no objections to your statement.

Oh and your comment on the Indian Independence movement page wasn't that long ago - it was on the 6th of October, 2007.

I once again request you to stop pushing your British agenda.

DemolitionMan 06:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

1: You don't understand what I'm saying at all. Of course there aren't going to be references to say the Indians weren't freedom fighters as its not the established view that they are that. Who is going to write something arguing against a minority opinion they may not even be aware of? Patriots isn't mentioned as being bad like freedom fighters but it is the same sort of word, the rules do not list each and every word which isn't allowed, just the broad pattern. 2: ...!= means the opposite of =. OK I'll stop pushing British agenda. I'm going to totally drop NPOV. Now I'm off to edit the article on Cromwell to add in a lot of stories about him eating babies and whatnot. --Josquius 12:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. That's hilarious. How many references have been provided to you that the Indians were freedom fighters? At least stick to one argument. Almost all Indian textbooks refer to it as the First War of Indian Independence - that's about a billion people. Or is it that they don't count because of the color of their skin?

2. Have you ever learnt Sets and sub-sets in Arithmetic? Complementary sets? Supplementary sets? Elsewhere would mean everywhere outside of the mentioned names. Any kid in third grade will tell you that. All the best with the vandalism on the Cromwell page. DemolitionMan 13:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

1: None. And do you not think that the Indians might be just a little, tiny bit biased? 2: This is English not maths. Elsewhere just means somewhere else. It could be everywhere else, it could be a small hut in Outer Mongolia.--Josquius 14:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Read the article again. There are enough sources there.

2. Logic remains the same irrespective of language. I initially thought that it was mere logic that was your weak point. I now realize it is the English language too. My regrets, I should have been more sensitive. DemolitionMan 15:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

1: There are absolutely no sources that say they were freedom fighters. All I've seen is sources where some people say they were. You seem to have trouble determining what a valid source is. 2: Sorry if it goes against your black and white world view but 'elsewhere' is a rather vague word, English has a lot of those.--Josquius 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediator notes

 * this diff is a part of the disputea

Administrative notes
For convience:
 * Indian Rebellion of 1857
 * Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857

Discussion
I will take this case if no one objects. I would also like to have the discussion here as it helps those looking throught the archives find things-- Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem.
 * Re the name: That is not the issue under debate here. Indian Rebellion of 1857 was long ago agreed to be a neutral name between Indian Mutiny/Sepoy Mutiny and War of Independance both of which as names take sides too much. DM's sneaking of the Indian nationalist name into the infobox however is weaseling around this agreement.--Josquius 18:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was the name in the infobox I was talking about-- Phoenix 15 (Talk) 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely that should match the article title?--Josquius 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never stated any objection to it merely being "Rebellion of 1857" as the title of the infobox. In fact, I am pretty sure I changed it to that myself once. DemolitionMan 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Recomendations
This diff is a major part of the dispute. My first recommendation would be to restore Josquius's version as it seems the most neutral. The "Troops were followed by public in many places" part would be better situated in the text. DemolitionMan, you labeled Josquius's edit as vandalism, which it wasn't. As for the name, First War of Indian Independence gets 1,990,000 google search results and Indian Rebellion only gets 1,830,000 google search results-- Phoenix 15 (Talk) 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since, you've already said in your "recommendation" that the version of Jos seems the most neutral, how can I expect you to be neutral in this dispute? DemolitionMan 06:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't tell the difference between POV and NPOV anyway. So I won't expect you to see the difference between an admin's being and not being neutral. srs 08:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks janitor. Are you here in your capacity as Gunga-Din - josquis's trusted native water-bearer or in your personal capacity as a janitor? DemolitionMan 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * DemolitionMan, the recommendation I made is just that; a recomendation. You don't have to agree if you don't want. You're also making personal attacks, calm down. I would like to hear your part of the story before we continue. Write a summary of what happened and what you'd like to change about that. I'd also recommend you to read WP:NPOV and WP:NPA-- Phoenix 15 (Talk) 10:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggest reverting the article to a NPOV state, and then having it protected till this is decided, and/or till DemolitionMan is perm-banned off Wikipedia .. srs 07:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What a brilliant suggestion. Especially since this discussion is about deciding what the NPOV is. DemolitionMan 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Phoenix 15, I have been travelling a lot, and came to know only now (on the trail of SRS/JOSQUIS talk pages) that this article has reached here.

I hope you have noticed previous attempts to politicize the mere content dispute which is nothing very different from many such pages on Wikipedia. [], srs / [] / [] not just on this forum but also on other sites - []

I am not going to waste my well deserved sleep and I trust you are intelligent enough to guess what is the meaning of NEXUS or MANIPULATION OF PUBLIC VIEW. If you get time to read, the details will be found on all the links I have given. There have been attempts by someone to malign and attack personally certain people with mere content or subject arguments which need to be taken into account before deciding on WHO is attacking personally and WHOM. There come the words NEXUS and also PERSONAL INTERESTS. Being of a certain other nationality or race is no gaurantee to NPOV. Nor will the gaurantee be arriving from the fact that I am adamant on abusing my own history to prove a point. I am sure you would do the needful. In any case, I dont care where it ends, since I have given up Wikipedia after the personal attacks by a certain user who comes here complaining of personal attacks and I only spoke on this forum after that incidence. Thanks to the so-called NPOV approach of this Wikipedia intelligencia.

By the way, using your own comparison, could you please do the needful of making the article NPOV by using the google criterion and changing the title of the article under question or your NPOV is also limited to MAJORITY WINS kind of point-scoring match? --Bobby Awasthi 14:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a colossal shame that these guys (Jos and Janitor) have nothing to say anymore. Where'd they disappear? DemolitionMan 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Disappeared" because [a] Just got off a plane. [b] I don't particularly like repeating myself (your edits are juvenile + NPOV, you run sockpuppets, need to be permbanned off wikipedia till the next right wing sockpuppeteer with an agenda - first User:HKelkar, now you, next someone else ... comes down the pike, etc etc). Hence the silence.  Don't know User:Josquius but presume that he too has a life that extends beyond modifying wikipedia to reflect a right wing bjp + rss agenda.  srs 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure the social life of a janitor and water-bearer is quite colorful - who am I to pass judgment on someone who rants about me on LinkedIn? I hope you cleaned the plane well. I love the BJP + RSS agenda comment. It's like me saying, "I think you carry the communist manifesto with you"  just because you disagree with me. Actually, I  think you've never read a book in your life but hey I could be wrong. DemolitionMan 04:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And perhaps this link needs to be read

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9952

Another source which clearly states this was a national movement. DemolitionMan 11:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DemolitionMan, this is my conclusion, All the stuff you have ben adding to the infobox is already mentioned in the text of the article. Adding it to the infobox gives the inforamation a more prominent position, making the article slightly biased. If you want to make additions to the article, add it to the text,not into the infobox-- Phoenix 15 (Talk) 12:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

All the stuff mentioned in the Infobox is in the article. Not having most of it tilts it to the British POV. So then there should be no Infobox at all. DemolitionMan 13:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not having it is not at all the British POV, its NO POV. Its nothing but facts.--Josquius 14:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is JUST A STATEMENT from a person allegedly with a POV and THAT is nothing but fact.

Please justify your statement with FACTS/ARGUMENTS/CITATIONS/REFERENCES not mere rants. For further understanding of my preceeding sentence, please read Current Talk Page as well as Talk ARCHIVE 2 of the article in question, where we have present about 3 dozen citations/references unlike you and your friend who have merely made STATEMENTS / ALLEGATIONS OF BULLYING without a SINGLE reference/citation in favour of your POV. Any changes made by any one of the two complainants without following WP:DR should be taken as proofs of disruptive editing.

Phoenix 15 / Mediator, I hope you notice above, as well as the fact that first few steps in the series of actions recommended on WP:DR have been completely ignored/bypassed by the reporting editors in this dispute. 1 Avoidance - NOT DONE

2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved - NOT DONE BY SRS EVER.

3 Second step: Disengage for a while - DONE ONLY WHEN INFLIGHT.

4 Editor assistance

5 Further dispute resolution

5.1 Discuss with third parties

5.2 Informal mediation

Most importantly, I am personally interested in knowing what is Wikipedia looking for?

Contributions of an editor with an alleged Hindu Nationalist POV representing a view which may apparently be minority viewpoint on Wikipedia but a viewpoint having consensus amongst millions of Indians (all allegedly rabid hindu nationalists); who constantly keeps quoting/referring to primary/secondary sources, should simply be labelled as POV irrespective of citations/references?

Contributions of an editor with an alleged Western/Communist/Secularist POV camouflaged as NPOV simply because MOST people believe in them, should be labelled as APPEARING more neutral irrespective of not a single citation/reference?

--Bobby Awasthi 07:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This case is too dificult for me to mediate. The parties are too uncooperative. I recuse. Another mediator may be found or you can go to the Arbitration commitee--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Taken to the arbcomm.. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement

srs 15:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)