| Revision as of 13:06, 27 February 2008 editBobby Awasthi (talk | contribs)959 edits →Users endorsing this response← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:41, 27 February 2008 edit undoRonnotel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,164 edits →Cause of concern: Pro-Hindu -> Pro-IndianNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| === Cause of concern === | === Cause of concern === | ||
| ] has been blocked repeatedly for disruptive editing at ], inserting a hostile pro- |
] has been blocked repeatedly for disruptive editing at ], inserting a hostile pro-<s>Hindu</s>Indian POV. His contribution history demonstrates a narrow focus on this topic, almost to the point of being a ]. He has engaged in persistent edit warring, been blocked for violation of ], been to have engaged in abusive sock-puppetry, and used a in a blatant personal attack. He voluntarily agreed to a three-month topic ban on all ]-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 ]. He has also demonstrated incivility in his recent remarks. See , . | ||
| I'd like to ask the community to place ] under a ] restriction on all ]-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. | I'd like to ask the community to place ] under a ] restriction on all ]-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. | ||
| <br>] (]) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | <br>] (]) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| <small>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''. ] (]) 13:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::: "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? | ::: "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? | ||
Revision as of 13:41, 27 February 2008
In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC).
- DemolitionMan (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
DemolitionMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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-HinduIndian 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)
- "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 Misplaced Pages 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. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
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.
---
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
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.
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 Misplaced Pages 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.
Q.Is WP:CIVIL applicable only to DemolitionMan on Misplaced Pages? 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.
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.
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#RfC who has NOT edited anything else in almost last two months but has hundreds of edits of the said article alone?
A.
Q.Is Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages?
A.
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 Misplaced Pages 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
{Add summary here.}
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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages NPOV is close to this brilliance at times, after all the servers are in US and most flights halt at Heathrow.
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)
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.
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)
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)
- Comment by parties:
- 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.