Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DemolitionMan



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
is a disruptive influence at Indian Rebellion of 1857. Previously subject to a 3-month topic ban, he has resumed edit warring.

Cause of concern
User:DemolitionMan has been blocked repeatedly for disruptive editing at Indian Rebellion of 1857, inserting a hostile pro- Hindu Indian POV. His contribution history demonstrates a narrow focus on this topic, almost to the point of being a single purpose account. He has engaged in persistent edit warring, been blocked for violation of WP:3RR, been confirmed by checkuser to have engaged in abusive sock-puppetry, and used a derogatory epithet in a blatant personal attack. He voluntarily agreed to a three-month topic ban on all Desi-related articles, which has since expired. Lately, he has begun edit warring again (see, and  for an example of contentious behavior over a long-settled issue, which together with these reverts , ,  regarding his insertion of a controversial source are a violation of WP:3RR. He has also demonstrated incivility in his recent remarks. See ,.

I'd like to ask the community to place User:DemolitionMan under a one-revert restriction on all Desi-related articles. He seems incapable of editing constructively and moving towards consensus. He displays an open contempt for those with which he disagrees and often fails to assume good faith. Ronnotel (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I regret mis-identifying DemolitionMan's bias as pro-Hindu as per his statement below. I should have used the term Pro-Indian, which is clearly evident from his edits. I could have equally used the term Anti-British. Ronnotel (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.


 * Edit warring
 * Three-revert rule
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:SPA

Desired outcome
I seek community consensus that User:DemolitionMan be placed under a one-revert editing restriction on all Desi-related articles. I second the motionSlatersteven (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.


 * Ronnotel (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * --Josquius(talk) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.


 * srs (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * --Rockybiggs (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q. Which views of mine have been pro-Hindu? I consider this a provocative and malicious statement rooted in falsehood. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A. It has already been admitted that in calling you "pro-Hindu" the user who open this thing up was wrong. However to call you "anti-British" and "pro-Indian" would not be inaccurate.Led125 (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And what would be the logic behind this ridiculous assertion as well. The only thing I've stated is that Brits today need to get over the diminishing status of the country and stop waving the Union Jack as they ardently continue to Britishize this article. I stand by that - however I fail to see how this can be construed as anti-British. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * and you have called thee British Nazis, that you have dismised British sources are racist by nature of being British. Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Q.How is DemolitionMan's editing considered disruptive in the first place? (neither defined/nor quantified). Every single edit of this user has an edit summary. There is normally not more than one edit between any two edits done by other users.

A.

Q.How is Slatersteven's editing NOT considered disruptive and not categorized as edit warring (possibly ignoring WP:3RR too) in comparison, especially since there are FOUR edits between 23:07, 26 February 2008 and 23:14, 26 February 2008?

A.

Q.As is evident from the edit history of the article AS WELL AS talk page DemolitionMan has been one person QUOTING/CITING extensively in support of any points raised by him as compared to the one of the certifiers Slatersteven who has relied extensively on vocal jibes limited to EVERYONE KNOWS SO / EVERYONE THINKS SO rhetoric. Just because DemolitionMan is openly vocal against a clearly visible British POV makes him so abhored that Wikipedia community starts putting restrictions on his contribution? DemolitionMan has by far given more citations/quotations/references to this article than most other users thereby adding a lot of knowledge. Or is the real reason so that if he continues, some day more people might start comparing apples to apples and make out between I THINK SO nonsense and MANY THINK SO TOO sensibility?

A. I think you will find it's the other way around, DemolitionMan has repeadly used to EVERYONE KNOWS SO / EVERYONE THINKS SO rhetoric (such as everyone in India belives this) whilst constantly attavking any sources provided as racialy biased or not valid (it seems mainly because they are not Indian). Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Q.Is WP:CIVIL applicable only to DemolitionMan on Wikipedia? How would all this below be classified, for example, especially considering Churcill is not alive to complain on this forum? (Or am I allowed to abuse Gandhi because he was as dark and as Indian as myself?) ''And I really don't know where you got the idea of India shipping all its food to Britain came from. That is utter rubbish, it just wouldn't have made economical sense. Most of Britain's food came from the Americas- the US, Canada and Argentina...     ...0% GDP growth likewise is just a lie. Figures I have show India's GDP clearly does grow overall.--Josquius (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) & You however are pushing your original research (if it can be called research) that it was worse then the nazis...   ...And who made you the speaker for all the Indian people? & You're strawmanning again. Of course some food was shipped from India to the UK. This is a long way from what you say happened though- that the starving Indians had all their food took from them so it could be sent to Britain.'' & I have no idea if Churchill said that. It wouldn't suprise me if he did, he was quite a dinosaur. Josquius (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)'''

A. NO, and I askethat that debate was stoped, and was ignored, moreover DemolitionMan has a history of abusive and offensice language.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Q.Is WP:SPA applicable to a user who has been FORCED by a specific junta (Usernames can be counted on fingers) to stick to only one article/page? DemolitionMan has been rather patient to face a group of 2-4 editors through the last one and half year, WHO HAVE ENSURED that EVERY SINGLE EDIT done by him is either reverted or changed significantly.

A. What about the 2-4 editors who supported him, Do not make out that in some one this is a one sided debate. Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Indeed. He also seems to forget that in the days before the anti-British POV on the article was reduced any minor attempts to do so were met with the utmost contempt by a specific junta led by the hero of our story.--Him and a dog 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Q.Is WP:SPA applicable to a user reported by an Admin only? Is WP:SPA not applicable to the same Admin's 911 User_talk:Slatersteven who has NOT edited anything else in almost last two months but has hundreds of edits of the said article alone?

A.

Q.Is Cite_sources NOT applicable to any of the junta ALWAYS refusing to acknowledge tons of quote/citations from the other side?

A.

Q.Where was WP:CIVIL and where was this admin's neutrality when I left frustrated from Wikipedia?

A.

Q.Does expressing regret and correcting pro-hindu to pro-Indian absolve someone of the stature of an Administrator from his VISIBLE BIAS and religiously charged mindset against Hinduism/Indianism per se?

A.

Q.Is WP:SPA not applicable to User:Led125? considering Special:Contributions/Led125?

A. No, I have added to a number of articles on Wikipedia, the bombing of Dresden, colonialism in Africa and the Indian Mutiny. My interest is primarily in economic history of India. The only real reason I discussed things on the Indian Mutiny was because a discussion about NPOV got sidetracked into a discussion about nineteenth century Indian economic history.Led125 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

'Q' Derogatory Epithet: The same epithet was used on me and Bobby much before [] - however, of course no action was taken while I was banned for 3 months. It goes without saying that the person using the epithet initially was promoting the British POV. Apparently the idea of a brown guy using the same epithet is revolting but if someone else does then it is fair game. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) A That was a ip, not an established user from the conversation. Had that been me or another participant resorting to that then I assure you something similar would also likely have happened.--Him and a dog 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * which is a good example of one fo the issues with DemolitionMan a tendancy to justify actions by pointing to similar actions from other usees, but not the one who is the target of his actions. Beside how do yu know this user was not a brown guy? An assumpition of sockpupertry (agains).Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Response

 * "Hostile pro-Hindu"? I am not even Hindu! What views of mine have pray been pro-Hindu or anti-Islamc, anti-Christian, anti-Druze or anti-Semitic? I'd really like to know. This comment may come across as provocative, but how am I to react to such a blatantly false accusation?

And when did we ever reach a consensus on any of the stuff I've edited? Stuff written by authors like Amaresh Mishra is being left out on purpose to give the whole article a British bent.

I actually won't be surprised if indeed this appeal of Ronnotel and Slatersteven is agreed upon. Ever since I've agreed on a voluntary 3-month ban I've abided by the rules - I've NOT violated the 3RR - which would need to be revert 4 times within a 24 hour period. But then, there are different rules for different people. If Wikipedia allows every user to contribute irrespective of his color or national origin - then I don't see why I should be discriminated against. Do what you must.

Response to concerns
I'd agree. DM has consistently denied Indian atrocities during the Mutiny, rejected anything written by a Briton on the Mutiny, cited Holocaust Denial material to support his views, thrown around "racist" and "biased" remarks way too often.Led125 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Holocaust Denial material??? When did I ever do that? This is another blatant lie of the highest proportion and I find it disgusting to say the least. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Denied Indian atrocities? When have I done that either? I have merely asked for sources for unreferenced material, well in line with Wikipedia policy? DemolitionMan (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On that discussion board for the Indian Mutiny article. For some reason a discussion about NPOV detracted to a discussion about Dyer, Amritsar and the Bengal Famine. However the stuff that you wrote on the famine had an uncanny resemblance to an article about the famine in a Holocaust Denial magazine. Again, you have repeatedly called massacres of British, Eurasian and Christrian civilians during the Indian Mutiny as "alleged" when in fact it is well established that they happened. Needless to say the only way you coould prove these assertions was by dismissing anything written by any British historian on the war.87.114.29.115 (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never read a Holocaust Denial magazine - infact, till you mentioned it I didn't realize such ridiculous things are published and bought. Christian civilians?? I've never read anything about Christian civilians in this entire article. You seem fixated on religion - first you call me pro-Hindu and now assert that I am anti-Christian without an iota of data. That is plain ridiculous. Such views which unnecessarily malign Hindus and promote Christianity have the bearing of a Klansman. It sounds a bit far fetched - but that is what it comes across as. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote the following in a discussion on the Indian Mutiny board: “The British authorities enacted the so-called "Boat-Denial Scheme" leading to confiscation of all boats and ships in the Gulf of Bengal which could carry more than 10 persons. This resulted in not less than 66,500 confiscated boats. Consequently, the inland navigation system collapsed completely. Fishing became practically impossible, and many rice and jute farmers could not ship their goods anymore. Subsequently the economy collapsed completely, especially in the lower Ganges-Delta.The confiscations of land in connection with military fortifications and constructions (airplane landing places, military and refugee camps) led to the expulsion of about 150,000 to 180,000 people from their land, turning them practically into homeless persons. Food deliveries from other parts of the country to Bengal were refused by the government in order to make food artificially scarce. This was an especially cruel policy introduced in 1942 under the title "Rice Denial Scheme." The purpose of it was, as mentioned earlier, to deny an efficient food supply to the Japanese after a possible invasion. Simultaneously, the government authorized free merchants to purchase rice at any price and to sell it to the government for delivery into governmental food storage. So, on one hand government was buying every grain of rice that was around and on the other hand, it was blocking grain from coming into Bengal from other regions of the country. Even though British law in India provided that emergency laws were to be applied in case of famines, the famine in Bengal was never officially recognized as such; an emergency was not declared, and therefore no drastic counter measures were taken for its amelioration. It was not until October of 1943 that the British government took notice of the emergency situation, but it still refused to introduce any supportive measures that would have been necessary. Even though India imported about 1.8 million tons of cereals before the war, Britain made sure that India had an export surplus of rice at record levels in the tax year 1942/43. The bad situation in Bengal was discussed in the British Parliament during a meeting at which only 10% of all members participated. Repeated requests for food imports to India (400 Million people) led to the delivery of approximately half a million tons of cereal in the years 1943 and 1944. In contrast to this was the net import to Great Britain (50 Million people) of 10 million tons in the second half of the year 1943 alone. Churchill repeatedly denied all food exports to India, in spite of the fact that about 2.4 million Indians served in British units during the Second World War.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&action=edit&undoafter=194624969&undo=194625165 The whole thing has been lifted from article], which appeared in a Holocaust Denial magazine. If you were unsure about Holocaust denial you shoudl do some research into your own sources, considering you frequently lambast anyone who relies on a British source. It wasn't me who called you "pro-Hindu", if you look carefully that was Ronntonel. I am Led125. Also the "Klansman" are fixated with race, not religion (I am an athiest and in any case there was no such thing as the KKK in the UK). However the use of the word "Klansman" does give us some insight into your mind. Whenever somebody says something that you don't agree with, you attack them by implying that they are racist. Also, the fact that on everything concerning Britain you try to protray British people in a negative picture (you even called them "Nazis") does strongly suggest an anti-British POV.Led125 (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is based on the ridiculous assumption that I went to this holocaust denial website. I got my info from the following site

http://www.samarthbharat.com/bengalholocaust.htm

Secondly, I have been on record saying that not all British people are Nazis just as all Germans were not Nazis. I standby my assertion that the similarities between the British Raj and the Nazi Regime are striking. If you construe that as "on everything concerning Britain you try to protray British people in a negative picture" then I strongly urge you to read what I wrote again. DemolitionMan (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you should definitely check your sources more thoroughly. Look at the bottom, the author admits he is in the debt of an article written by a Holocaust denier. In fact, he plagiarized whole sections of his article from a Neo-Nazi journal.Led125 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective, that doesn't give you a carte blanche to accusing people of posting material from a Holocaust Denial magazine. You should have checked out other sources too. You need to be more thorough.DemolitionMan (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? I have read decent sources. I didn't just google "Bengal holocaust'' and read whatever lousy site appeared.Led125 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not germane to this RfC. First, the entire discussion quoted is on the talk pages and editors have considerable leeway on what is said there. Second, the article itself - though poorly written with selective citations and a rather obvious agenda - is not by itself a holocaust denial article. Accusing User:DemolitionMan of sympathizing with holocaust deniers is not warranted here. IMHO he does use the term holocaust loosely and probably incorrectly but since that is not in the main article, but since that hasn't spilled over into the main article, it shouldn't be used against him. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

At no point did I accuse DM of being a "Holocaust denier", or of sympathising with Holocaust denial. I was merely pointing out my observations of him on the discussionm board. He accuses those he is talking to of being biased, racist and relying on bigoted sources all the while relying on psuedo-scholarship.Led125 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he's explained that while the material may have originally been published in bigoted sources, he was not aware of that. I agree with your psuedo-scholarship description about the article but comments about that article have been confined to the talk pages and discussing it here, I think, detracts from the intent of this RfC. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.


 * 3RR

Users endorsing this response

 * --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC) I am doing it but there is no point. I told DemolitionMan to give up Wikipedia months ago. Not because he gets aggressive too often, but because I watched a cricket test match which had a brilliant team (catching from the grass and appealing out) and an even brilliant pair of umpires (with 7 mistakes shared between them, surprisingly 6 in favour of the same brilliant team) and an even brilliant match referee who continues to fine a 19 year old against a veteran brilliant in instigating, even though his decision against the racially abusive BROWN team (in favour of the same brilliant WHITE team) was later reverted. Wikipedia NPOV is close to this brilliance at times, after all the servers are in US and most flights halt at Heathrow.
 * Hmm, sounds a lot like the plot from a certain movie. Ronnotel (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.''

Q.He has also I feel been racialy offensive.

A.What is racialy? If the user in question means racially offensive - I would like to know which race is it that I have singled out to offend? If I've inadvertently offended anyone that has certainly not been my intention and I would like to offer that person my profound regret. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By likaning the British to Nazis. Which you have contiued to da after posting this appoloigy. Has repeatedly dismissed sources based upon the language they are writen in. Has repeadly used phrases and terms that imply an assumption of racial bias rather then good faith. Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

I've expressed regret and not offered any apology. And I will continue to stick to my view - I don't see much different between the Third Reich and the British Raj/Reich. It is regrettable that it offends you - but facts remain facts. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a fact it is a POV, and one that is not supported by evidance. But I am glad to see you admit that you have not offerd an appology, ad that you will continue to bahave in the same way in th future. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]] Q.

A.

Additional view by User:Slatersteven
He has made racist, and racialy inflamitory comments. He has also (I belive) deliberatly mislead users over a translation issue, attempting to pass of a phrse in Hindi as a translation of the English title when it was not.


 * I would love to get more on this. When did I ever mislead anyone. From what I understand, it is Wikipedia policy that if there NOT a common name for an event, then the common name in the native language can be put. It is quite apparent that there are multiple names here.

By claming a phrase was a translation when it was not, but a whole differnt phrase. Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Users who endorse this summary:



Additional view by an ex-editor who was choked by User:Slatersteven & User:Josquius
The two users above have had a history of choking the article in discussion as well as anyone who has been against an overtly British POV. They have NEVER given any citations of academic value (occassionally referring to Saul David and ilk) The root cause of this Rfc is DM's vocal opposition to Britishization of that article, which is even visible in the ACCUSATION above. The Hindi words that have been forcibly removed from the article and cited as an attempt to mislead by DM are EXACTLY the same as the title of the page that opens by clicking on Hindi Version Link on the same article. This is a crusade of British-One-up-man-ship possibly ignorantly (I am assuming good faith with very faint hope) supported by an uninvolved (I am again assuming good faith with an even fainter hope) Admin. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On what do you base the accusation that the sources (some of which both yourself and Demo have referenced) are unreliable?

But it is not the same as the name of the page they are on, it was not a translation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Additional views by User:RegentsPark
I disagree with the premise behind this RfC. My reasons are as follows: 1. The user is accused of inserting a (hostile?) Indian POV. I don't see how an article about an important event in Indian history can be written without considering an Indian POV. According to WP:POV, An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy. One can argue that a particular Indian POV is not a major POV but I don't see how one can censure a user for approaching an article about an important event in Indian history with an Indian POV. If other editors feel that a particular POV is not mainstream enough to be included, the proper place to discuss that is on the Talk page. 2. '''he has begun edit warring again. Example 1: Repeated insertion of Hindi title.''' The first edit war example (, and )  relates to the the insertion of a Hindi title (I discuss this below). Only two of the links included work so I'll only discuss them. A hindi title was removed by User:Slatersteven and this was reinstated by User:DemolitionMan with specific reference to the reasons given by User:Slatersteven. That does not constitute an edit war because User:Slatersteven then has recourse to discussing his/her reasons on the talk page. This reversion was undone by a third user with no substantive reason specified, which, User:DemolitionMan reverted. Given that use of Hindi text was apparently controversial, the proper course of action was to initiate a discussion on the talk page which User:DemolitionMan seems to have done. I don't see how these actions are controversial enough to be called 'edit warring'. (The discussion was ongoing at the time of this RfC.) 3. '''he has begun edit warring again. Example 2: Repeated reversion of text summarizing the Mishra position'''. Let me say at the outset that I don't agree with this wholesale inclusion of the Mishra POV. It is recent unwhetted work; it is at odds with a traditional views, does not really make a case for a national uprising; etc. etc. At best, I think it should be relegated to a few lines with an appropriate caveat. However, it is a POV that is published and seems to be not without merit (see ). In the examples of the edit warring given above:, , , I don't see how User:DemolitionMan is at fault. He signaled his intent to include the material on the talk page a while ago, included the material and added references, and then, in the first reversion example, his material was undone with a bland "vandalism" and "not RS" statement. The other two reversions are exactly the same. Whether the writer satisfies WP:RS should be discussed on the talk page and again it was User:DemolitionMan himself who started the discussion there. Both these edit warring examples seem flawed because in both cases text added by User:DemolitionMan without discussion and, in both cases, it was User:DemolitionMan who tried to initiate a discussion. 4. demonstrated incivility and open contempt for those with which he disagrees. This charge may be correct but any reading of the talk page shows that the incivility and contempt seem to be all around and not inconsistent with the tone of the other discussants. At worst, this rates a censure rather than an RfC. 5. Requirements for an RfC. Last, but not the least, this RfC does not satisfy the requirements of an RfC. According to Requests for comment, ''before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours.''. Neither of the two users listed as "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute." has contacted User:DemolitionMan on his talk page. User:Ronnotel has not contributed a whit to the discussion let alone attempt a resolution. And, User:Slatersteven seems to be a party to the dispute rather than someone attempting to seek a resolution. I understand that there is a history with this user but I am surprised that an administrator decided to initiate an RfC without first seeking a resolution. Frankly, I am completely baffled by the discussion on the talk page. The last decade has seen a complete re-examination of the events of 1857-1859 and our understanding of that period is so much richer than it was when I first studied it. Instead of trying to talk to each other and ensuring that this complexity is represented in the article, the editors seem stuck on pushing simplistic views of the events (mutiny, war of independence, holocaust!). User:DemolitionMan is probably guilty of pushing a POV but there has been NO ATTEMPT to build a consensus around his views, NO ATTEMPT to discuss if his views and sources are reasonable and how best to incorporate them in the article, and NO ATTEMPT at resolving the conflict between him and other editors on the page. It is unfair to single him out. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional views by HLGallon
I have been doing my best with the article concerned, but I regret that I find it difficult or impossible to accomodate User:DemolitionMan. His contributions are either deliberately inflammatory or poorly presented. This is unfortunate, since he might have made substantial improvements to the article, by including and discussing works not readily available in the West. Instead, and particularly in the case of Amaresh Mishra, he laid himself open to accusations of poor scholarship by making no reference to the work itself but lifting substantial portions of text from, an Indian news discussion site and quoting them verbatim, in such a manner as to make their relevance difficult to ascertain. (I was tempted to remove them wholesale on grounds of Copyright violation, but did not discover DemolitionMan's source until they had already generated some furore and I had already moved portions into sections dealing with specific geographical areas of India.)

DemolitionMan might have discussed the content of works by British or non-Indian historians by reference to Indian sources and later research; instead, he chose to abuse them on racial grounds, and certainly applied that racial abuse to contributors who chose to defend these non-Indian sources. His conduct has made it almost impossible for any contributor to work on the article without fearing abuse or hostility.

In short, I must find against DemolitionMan on grounds of poor research, reliance on "knocking copy", and readiness to resort to terms of racial or personal abuse.

HLGallon (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(PS. Please note that, after reading reviews of Mishra's work, I have described some of his points as "unverifiable assertions". This does not apply to the specific names of people and places which have found their way into the article, but those large extrapolations and claims of "X million dead" and so on. I would apply the same term to any British (or other) apologist who asserted that, for example, "Most civilians killed in such-and-such a place died as a result of inter-communal violence rather than British action", without ample supporting evidence.)

Additional views by Josquius
I'm a bit too busy these days to use wikipedia too often but when I checked today I was pleasently surprised to find Demolitionman has returned to his old form. In the past he was a persistant problem on the Indian rebellion article. He is frequently racist in his fanatical anti-British views despite an apparent complete ignorance of the way the UK is today and has been for decades. Indeed since my views usually follow a fairly factual, NPOV historical line he constantly attacks anything I say as being the work of a British nationalist... despite the fact that I'm an Irish socialist. He picks and chooses which historical sources he will believe on the basis of whether they agree with his version of events or not. The way he acts would be verging upon being a troll did he not actually believe this stuff. --Him and a dog 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if Jos claims he is a Martian - his views all over Wikipedia mark out to be a rabid British nationalist to the point of arguing for the use of British English spelling in predominantly American articles. He is hardly a troll - just a delusional poor guy who needs to get over the diminishing status of his little island. Well, too bad. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional view by Ronnotel
I would like to note that User:DemolitionMan filed what I deem to be a retaliatory RfC against me. As this RfC failed certification per procedures, I have since closed it and pointed to this RfC as a reasonable place for discussion of my behavior in this matter. Ronnotel (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, good. You have followed a single point agenda against me when users like Jos and Steven have been as blunt and rude. Your actions are questionable although I am sure your intentions are right - you really believe what you write. But why single me out? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This RfC is a discussion of your behavior. If you have legitimate concerns about the conduct of others you can raise it through the regular channels. However, I would like to remind you that you have already been warned about abusing the dispute resolution process. Ronnotel (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional views by uninvolved Otolemur crassicaudatus
I am not a regular contributor in the article Indian Rebellion of 1857, I am new in this page. And politically I am not any kind of nationalist, politically I am anarchist. What I have seen after checking the history of this article, User:DemolitionMan's edit pattern certainly has a hostile anti-British POV. And he has made several hostile racist comments in the talk page of the article and many indirect anti-White comments. His edit patterns border hostile anti-White racism. So any kind of good judgment from the involved parties here will be appreciated. Thanks.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solutions
''This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties. ''

Template
1) Permban User:DemolitionMan and protect the article after reverting to an NPOV version. Wait till the next hindu nationalist editwar + sockpuppet turns up (the last one I remember was User:HKelkar). srs (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:

1. srs should be the first person to be permbanned for making such a suggestion without involving in ANY possible positive way on this article in last TWO years. Negative or Positive attitude, the user in question has at least, for sure, added hell lot of contents to Wikipedia. Suresh Ramasubramaniam, however, is an absolutely unashamed self-style judge in this forum. He has consistently been disruptive Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_1 (causing people to leave Wikipedia)/ Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_1 (heavily loaded with a POV) / Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_1 (editing without consensus or consulting) / Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_2 (deleting contributions inconsistent to his personal definition of NPOV by citing fictitious reasons)/ Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_2 (persistent personal attacks and mockery). These are just some examples from early 2007. Edit history of the article will suggest Mr. Suresh Ramasubramaniam has NEVER in last many months added a single line or two to the real article but has been CONSISTENTLY DELETING / REVERTING anything put forward by the user in question or anyone who has a simillar view. Suresh Ramasubramaniam is persuing a personal agenda of vindicating a particlar side of the story for unknown personal motives which was described here. In light of his latest suggestion here, without even involving in the discussion, I recommend initiation of enquiries on his personal motive and intentions even before looking at his suggestion. There seems, albeit remote, a possibility of conflict of financial/profession interest between the two editors since they both belong to somewhat close professions/locations. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to (very rluctantly) agree, as User:DemolitionMan has stated he will continue to give and cause offense by his language. That he has offerd no appology and moreover has even used the saem language and attitude here. He shows not only contempt for fellow editors but Wikipedia itself. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]


 * User:DM has not shown any particular foul language or attitude here, so your assertion fails per se. A filing of RFC does not by itself imply conviction although in a ghetto POV it is quite possible to achieve the same in the end. But even if it is achieved by dubious arguments/methods, an RFC per se, does not imply someone has to apologize. If that is so, I would file an RFC on many people and enjoy getting their apologies for reasons unknown to me too. (Please can you be a little more patient when typing English, the language sometimes becomes a bit incoherent). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He certainly has used that attitude here. He has said more to damn himself on this page then anyone else ever could.--128.240.229.65 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.