Case Opened on 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Editors of Rajput[edit]

Statement by Digvijay[edit]

This dispute is not amongst individuals as some are portraying here but because of muslim group's insistence on pushing there POV without any bibliographies and then westerners aligning with muslim POV. Note these westerners have not read a single book on rajput history but for some strange reason they support the muslim POV.

I went through all archives on rajput talk page and disagreements can be summarised as follows.

1. rajputs and non-rajputs differ on how easily India was conquered.

2. role of rmarathas,sikhs,rajput as vanguards of hindu religion. Contrast with Zoroastrians/Persia under Yezdezird during Invasion of Persia.

3. rajputs that converted are rajputs or not.

Click here to read about points 1 and 2. [1] and here to read about point 3. [2]

Also Denzil Ibbetson's book was cited as a source recently by Muslims to support there claims. Ibbetson actually gives in the same book the conditions on which some rajputs lost there rajput status by allowing widow remarriage. Read it here [3]. Islam allows remarriage of widows.

Lastly, and most pertinently rajputs have been equated to jihaad seeking muslims i.e islamic terrorists. Read it here: [4]

Rajputs who converted to Islam are referred to as Ranghars or KyamKhanis in India today. This is how James Tod referred to them. James Tod wrote Annals and antiquites of Rajasthan, a comprehensive work on rajputs. Such converts lost there rights of patrynomic inheritance and other rajputs no longer considered these converts as rajputs.

Resolution of this dispute is actually quite simple. Muslim rajputs already have there own page on WP. They can create a link to the main rajput page from there and that is it. Main rajput page can mention that rajputs converted to Islam.

Statement by Dbachmann[edit]

I request arbitration on events occurring at Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where mind-boggling edit-warring and shouting matches have been occurring for the best part of half a year. The question holding the article hostage is "Can there be such a thing as a 'Muslim Rajput'?". The simple answer is that this is disputed. But far from documenting the controversy, a tag team of "Hindus only" editors (very difficult to keep track of, fraying into throwaway accounts, anon IPs, and probable sockpuppets) vigorously opposes the mere description of such a controversy. The talkpage has long degenerated into an unreadable shouting match, making it impossible for the bona fide editors (which exist on both sides, "Hindus only" and "Muslims too") to have a meaningful discussion. I request of the arbcom to

establish possible identities of involved editors (sockpuppet checks)
review the behaviour of the more disruptive editors, and pronounce bans or probations
lay out guidelines for admins, enabling them to deal with trolling on the article in the future (e.g., authorizing blocks for personal attacks or rolling back of offtopic rants)

I should mention that I became involved, as an admin, on 13 December (reacting to a complaint on WP:AN/I, and tried to enforce wikiquette and policy; as a result I have been accused of taking sides, resulting in an "RfC". I have not taken administrative action since, and if the arbcom enters upon this case, I will further agree to consider myself an involved party, as the case's submitter, and will voluntarily abstain from editing the article for the duration of the case....

dab (ᛏ) 18:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zora[edit]

Admin Dmcdevut asked me to take a look at the article several months ago -- he knew I had some basic knowledge of India and thought I might be able to help the warring parties compromise. I failed utterly. Any attempt to revise the article to say that there was a debate re Rajput identity or outline the several positions involved was instantly reverted by Shivraj Singh, Sissodia, etc.. They used as many sockpuppet accounts or anonIPs as necessary to squelch any challenge. I was also reviled and accused of being an ignorant foreigner, a Muslim jihadi, etc. I have not been doing much on the article of late; I want to do a rewrite, but it's not my area of academic expertise and I need to make the time for a fair bit of reading. I hope that this arbcom case will help us come up with some policies of broader application in dealing with POV warriors who will not allow alternate viewpoints to even be mentioned. Zora 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Khurram[edit]

I have been an active participant on this talk page since October and have witnessed many admins come and leave the grounds in despair. The issue arose when the editors based their comments on original research and assumptions while denying the historical facts. The comments of some editors are guided by "Anti Muslim" and "Anti Islam" sentiment and they do not accept any logic or historical fact that is provided to them if it is contrary to their belief. They bashed the admins and other editors alike and marked people as "Jihadi", "Ignorant Whiteman", "Bitch", "Son of a Pig", "Godfather of xxxx", "Slave of xxxx" etc. while showing no respect for the published work and historical facts. They focus on making an article more of a "propaganda" page rather than one addressing the historical facts scientifically and neutrally. Their references comprise of conclusions that they reach themself by reading books that are written to elevate certain historical personalities and are clearly biased in their nature and purpose. While being a witness of this behavior for more almost three months, I strongly feel that only an arbitration committee can bring this article on track.

User:Gurkhaboy has provided an excellent example of original research and user bashing below where he himslef concludes that no Muslim can be Rajput whereas not providing any reference stating this claim. He used some pieces of my converstaions with user:wisesabre where we were talking about giving references. I am confused what is wrong with those conversations. Is it wrong discussing the bringing up of references? I think it should have been very useful if he would have come up with references stating that Rajputs can "only" be Hindus.

خرم Khurram 15:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sisodia[edit]

The core dispute in this article is that some communities, who are Muslims and claim a Rajput descent, can be considered Rajputs or not. I and some fellow editors believe that “Muslim Rajput” is an oxymoron term. Rajput term inherently assumes adherence to Hindu religion. A conversion to another religion presupposes a relinquishing of Rajput identity. Muslims by definition being a caste-less society can never be called Rajputs as Rajputs form one of the castes of Hindu society. Conversions happen in all communities and they do not oblige the parent community to reconcile itself with all those who leave the fold. Notwithstanding this argument, some Muslim editors are adamantly refusing to start an article of their own, and insist on acknowledgement of their Rajput status in this article.

The common understanding in the world over is that Rajputs are a Hindu caste. To give just one evidence, a popular website dictionary.com offers two definitions of the word ‘Rajput’ from two different dictionaries. Sufficient to say that both dictionaries define Rajputs as a Hindu community.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Rajput

Even if for the argument’s sake we set aside the Hindu religion condition, Muslim side’s position is further weakened by the fact their Rajput descent itself is considered doubtful by many historians. Rajputs define themselves as belonging to any one of the well established thirty six clans. The so called “Muslim Rajputs” clans have never figured in this list.

I therefore propose that Muslims editors be advised to leave the main Rajput article alone. They should be free to start an article of their own under any other name, and they can put their claims of a Rajput identity in this separate article.

In the heat of the battle (battle it surely was, as the arbitrators will soon find out), uncivil words have been spoken by all sides, including the persons who were acting as the administrators of this article. In the spirit of reconciliation, I am willing to forgive all such personal attacks.

Sisodia 04:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AMbroodEY[edit]

Well its easy to believe that the unpleasentaries are comming from Hindu side only. I believe many Indian editors have at times been hysterical,abusive and have misrepresented the Hindu POV. Yes many Indians converted to Islam, but the argument of Hindu side here is that since Rajput is a caste and as Islam is casteless, one loses his identity as a Rajput on becoming a Muslim. Moreover Hindus generally used to marry within their own caste, in Islam there were no such caste considerations. Hence it is impossible to comepletely preserve the Rajput blood line.

Another POV Muslim editors are keen on pushing is that Rajputs didnt fight Muslims in defence of Hinduism and that they were fighting for purely materialistic reasons. Yes some Rajputs may have collaborated with Mughals yet many more fought for defence of Hindu civilisation. Stanley Wolpert described them as "a vanguard of Indian civilization in face of Islamic onslaught".

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 18:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is important part from the Discussion on RFC agaist Dab[edit]

[5]

Its pretty obvious. Dbachmann should also have Khurram and his gang present proper sources and references. All these guys keep harping on origins from here and there, however they never cite any sources or evidence. And the reason why it has become this nasty is because Dbachmann should accept he has made an error in judgement.

You made the comment: "The refusal of Indian editors (specifically new wikipedians) to accept that experts on Indian history need not necessarily be Indian citizens."

Good for you, that was such an insulting comment, since I for one had teachers such as Dr. Joseph T. O'Connell, Dr. Diane Eck, Dr. M. Israel, Dr. Paulina Mazumder (a Welsh professor married to an Indian), Dr. Mcleod as my professors, to name a few when I was a student of South Asian studies.

You also stated:

"I condem this myopic and xenophobic attitude, and request the petitioners to get more familiar with the wikisystem."

I would have to simply reply that although I did not petition this, I do understand and support it since I can see a huge amount of injustice being done without admins accepting that they made had made an error judgement. You should be careful in your accusations of having people having "myopic and xenophobic attitude", the intolerance seems to be towards Hindus, and by having this intolerance you would allow Anti-Hindu chauvanists to simply write their POVs without any valid references or citations. That is just plain wrong.

Gorkhali 08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quote from DBachmann on Wisesabre's talk: "your presence is sorely needed here. I don't expect you get many Hindu trolls on ur:, but they really seem to flock to en:. Ultimately, they will end up at WP:RFAr if they go on like this. Their behaviour is more than enough for the arbcom to ban them, but somebody has to take the time for an arbitration case. I am committed to restoring a sane working environment at en:, where Hindus, Muslims and "whiteboys" can work together in peace. dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)"

Hindu trolls, that is just beautiful, thanks buddy, you really know how to people fell welcome. You'd be surprised that many people can work together, but by allowing Khurram and Wisesabre and the lot to have a free hand, you are committing an injustice. It also shows that you feel you will get a better article from those chaps simply because they have been polite to you and stroked your bruised ego. This is where you are making the mistake and you are not being impartial. Khurram and Wisesabre are still discussing whether they should try and find references and from where? Its amazing that only now they have realised that perhaps they should also provide evidence, but you didn't wait, you simply (along with your friends) went on a Hindu-Bashing trip, that was just great.

Gorkhali 10:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

From Khurram's Talk:

bro i cant cite any refernces because first of all my university library does not hosts any book on these sort of topics, secondly Punjab public library is not going to issue me any books (they dont issue to under graduates).thirdly I myself is not much intersted in Rajputi. That is why im Counting on You. I assure you that im not going to edit Rajput article again and I wont indulge my self in any edit war there, other then if you request. I totally Agree with you Wisesabre 18:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So he can't cite sources...that's just great, and meanwhile the rest of us have to scramble around digging up old references from University days only to be bashed. But ofcourse DBachmann takes his side of the arguements.

Gorkhali 10:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

From Wisesabre's Talk: Re categoty I think Pakistani wikipedians is much better . Since there are a lot of Pakistanis out there who arnt in Pakistan , they are Pakistani Wpedians & Wpedians in xxxxcountry . We have similar categories for India & Israel too . Farhansher 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Saqib my brother. I am back from Christmas break and although I haven't been on the Rajput article I think it might be where I left it. I know the amount of anxiety that some users create on that page as I, myself, am a victim of it. I just have one suggestion to make. If we, all Muslim Rajputs, provide with the references from the published work, and there are many, I think we will have a better chance of floating the truth on the topic. What do you say? The same we shall do for reverting the edits. What do you say bro?

خرم Khurram 17:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you my dear bro. You know for the book issuing problem, you can search the online libraries. Some libraries have books present online and that may help. www.netlibrary.com is such a source although I do not know if they carry any book on Indian/Pakistani content. One question though bro. What is your real name? Is it Saqib or Saif Allah?

خرم Khurram 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So now they decide that perhaps they should provide evidence and cite some sources, so up until now they were simply spewing whatever they wish and Dbachmann and his lot were willing to accept those POVs and not tkae into account that the "Hindu trolls" were perhaps citing references that could be checked up on.

Just goes to show you what can happen if you have a bias. Very disappointing.

Gorkhali 10:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

ZORA writes in the middle of my message above: A fair number of us who are involved are NOT PAKISTANI. Zora 08:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Yes, thank you Zora, I know you are not and you have stated that in the past before, but that is not the issue, hell I'm not Pakistani either nor am I full Indian so does that satisfy your curiosity on what my nationality is, perhaps you would like to know I was born in Canada, are you happy now?

The issue is a matter of injustice and if you took the time to read everything I wrote with a cool head, perhaps you'll see that a big error and injustice has been committed here. Is it that all of you are too proud to admit when you have made a mistake? Throughout the whole edit war, you guys waged a war against "Hindu Nationalist" POVs without asking the Pakistanis to provide their references. Instead of having any knowledge on the issue, I recall how you first replied to my messages and I never insulted you once, you simply when on this warpath without thinking for once what you were really arguing about.

Gorkhali 10:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A Hindu Troll

Dear Zora,

After seeing how I was treated in the beginning of the edit war on Rajputs and by your quick judgments of my comments both in the past and presently, I really don't expect to get any kind of justice here. It seems that in your frustrations and Dab's frustrations, both of you have overlooked what was really going on.

I have read through some of your conversations with Dab and Khurram and its pretty insulting. In all my years of inter-religious forums or working with different religions during medical relief programs, only here do I see so much contempt for Hindus.

Without having Khurram, Raja or Wisesabre cite any references, you allowed them to take open field against Rajputs. Enough articles, books, papers are out there that Shivraj would look more sane, believe it or not, than any of the guys who were arguing him. Shivraj and his group may not be tame or know how to write an academic impartial article, but they know the truth, the same truth that was recorded by Islamic historians for centuries. And yet, when Khurram and his group casually brushed off the references and historical accounts, both from an Islamic and Hindu perspective, none of you had a problem with that.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps yopu and your friends have made an error in judgment? I recall that when you first arrived in the debate you immediately stated that Communalism had no place in Wikipedia, and I totally agree, so why is the hatred geared towards Hindus?

A full analysis of the debate will show that Khurram, Wisesabre and Raja had a complete disregard for references and citations, casually brushing everything off as if they had a University education on the topic and had read every book. And now in their Talk pages you see that they are deciding on where to find sources since they had none from the beginning but were just riding the Anti-Hindu wave, and that is Communalism, a very light shade of it, but Communalism none the less.

You always reply to me as if I am an idiot, and perhaps you will never bother to read my profile to understand who I am and where am I coming from. Perhaps I know more about this topic than the whole group combined. And yet, you found it important to state to me that you were not Pakistani, believe me, I already knew that. However, you assume that I am responding and writing in such tones because I have some "problem" with Pakistanis, that is not true, but I do have a problem when people are trying to spread false information and simply hijack articles for their own political agenda.

Rajput: A member of any of several powerful Hindu landowning and military lineages inhabiting northern and central India.

Rajput: member of high Hindu caste: a member of one group of the Kshatriya caste, the second of the four Hindu castes Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Rajput /raajpoot/ noun a member of a Hindu military caste. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rajput?view=uk

Gorkhali 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Gurkhaboy[edit]

Since we have been asked to present evidence, I shall begin by quoting some texts to show how irresponsible the admin Dbachmann is by referring to the Hindu side of the debate as “Nationalist fanatics” ( please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29 ),

as well as others who were quick to judge the Hindu side of the argument.

First of all, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, Qaid-e-Azam has written:

“Pakistan started the moment the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam in India long before the Muslims established their rule. As soon as a Hindu embraced Islam, he was an outcaste, not only religiously, but also socially, culturally, and economically. As for Muslims, it was a duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society. Throughout the ages, Hindus remained Hindus and Muslims remained Muslims, and they had not merged their identities; that was the basis for Pakistan.” Source: Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Address to University Students, Impact International, Islamic Journal, Aligarh Muslim University, March 1944.

The above quote taken from the Father of Pakistan clearly shows how invalid the claim of so-called “Muslim Rajput” is.

Next piece of evidence from standard University History Textbooks used in South Asian Studies across North America:

“Many of the Hindu warriors of Rajasthan (Rajputs), who were among the fiercest opponents of the Muslim invasions…..” Page 73

“The Rajputs waged the staunchest battle, keeping the Turko-Afghans busy for years seeking in vain to drive these ferocious Kshatriyas from their desert domains……They [Rajputs] stood, at any event, as the vanguard of Hindu India’s spirited opposition to the Muslim conquest, and even when defeated in battle or driven from one desert fortress after another, they never completely surrendered.” Page 108

Boththe above quotes from: A New History of India, Stanley Wolpert, 4th edition, isbn: 0-19-507660-5

“The only power in the North was the Rajputs of Rajasthan. By their heroism and constancy they had repulsed Muslim attacks in the fourteenth century. ……It should be noted in passing that the term Rajput is a generic one for a warrior caste and in no way implies a particular physical race. In Rajasthan these warriors were a ruling race, but by no means all the inhabitants of Rajasthan were Rajputs. Rajputs of these and other clans were scattered all over northern and central India……..Rajputs are not a race, but an example of how Hinduism can reconcile invasion, cultural and racial intermixture by means of the pervasive concept of caste.” Page 17, A History of India, Volume Two, Percival Spear, isbn: 0-14-013836-6

Note: Volume One is written by Romilla Thapar, thus this should make Zora happy that I didn’t quote any suspected Hindutva writers as she is so suspicious of the Hindu side.

Now my Statement:

I had become involved in the Rajput article around August 28 or 29th, 2005. I had just discovered Wikipedia since a friend told me I should help out since I know a lot about certain topics that have to do with India and Nepal, since I almost went on to pursue a career as a professor in Indian studies and history.

I began contributing but had no idea how to officially sign my work until I figured out the whole “~” thing. However, from the beginning I was polite even in the face of erroneous claims to a Rajput identity and Gotra. Please refer to Talk:Rajput/Archive02, all responses signed as Kunwarji were from yours truly.

I saw how abusive and heavy handed the Pakistani side was, so I approached Dmcdevit (please refer to User talk:Dmcdevit/Archive7). Dmcdevit was very polite, encouraging and helpful, it was because of this person that I continued my work on the Gurkha article and was further encouraged by Bhadani who was also very kind.

In my correspondence with Dmcdevit, you will see how disappointed I was by the Rajput article.

I originally placed this definition in the article which I had taken out of my thesis (which was accepted) on Rajputs, which I had presented during my studies at the University of Toronto, South Asian Studies Department, under my thesis supervisor and professor, Dr. Joseph T. O’Connell, Prpfessor Emeritus, Former Chair, South Asian Studies Department, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

The Definition went like this:

"The term “Rajput” refers to the group's “jati” which is a social hierarchial status found within the caste system of Hinduism, which developed out of the Vedic varna system. The Rajputs consider themselves the original descendants of the Vedic warrior Kshatriya.

Although all members of a warrior caste, Rajputs vary in profession from aristocrats to farmers.

Rajputs are Hindu, and there are also Sikh minorities. There are Muslims who claim themselves to be Rajputs, but this claim is not recognized and is disputed by Hindu and Sikh Rajputs on the grounds that one must belong to Hinduism in order to be part of the jati system, and that once an individual has left Hinduism, they no longer fit into the Varna system and are considered an outcaste."

The quote from Jinnah I have stated in the beginning of my argument helps compliment this fact.You can compare my thesis definition to the founding father of Paksitan’s statement I have provided and see that when a Hindu converts he/she is an outcaste, by religion, social and economic and a Muslim does not identify with non-Islamic identities.

If you follow the lengthy debates on the Rajput article you begin to see how the Pakistani side begins to distort history, denies events, claims that all of North India became Pakistan (please refer to Talk:Rajput/Archive03), they began to ridicule my family by referring to us as “pensioners” which is in referral to the “Privy purses” which were granted by the Indian government to Royal families after they had given up their kingdoms and privileges to create a democracy and a free country.

They also began to distort the Sikh identity issue (my Grandmother and most of my cousins are Sikhs from the Aristocracy, hailing from the Phulkian states, the four Sikh kingdoms; Patiala, Nabha, Fairdkot and Jind). The Pakistani side tried to claim that a Hindu converting to a Sikh meant he/she should also loose their “Jati”, but this was never the case, not historically and not now, one can easily ever refer to a book, a Pakistani one at that; "The Real Ranjit Singh" by a Pakistani historian, Syed Fakeer Waheeduddin, (the great grandson of Fakeer Azizuddin, Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Foreign Minister).

The Pakistani side began dictating their understanding about the authority of Brahmins to the Hindu side of the arguement without any knowledge that the Rajputs are considered in many temples to be the chief priest i.e. The Maharana of Mewar for the Temple of Ekalingji, The Narsingh Rana Family (my family) for the temple of Pashupatinath in Nepal, The Maharaja of Puri for the temple of Jagannath, etc etc. The Pakistanis began a preaching session of what Hinduism is without any regard for the feelings of the Hindu side. Dbachmann et al would expect the Hindus to simply role over and take such abuse, that is so wrong, of course tempers are going to fly.

For a long time I left the debate seeing it as lost cause in the chaos of a group of people who claim to follow Islam but also wish to claim an identity from another Religion, Hinduism, which is against the beliefs of Islam and also not accepted by Hinduism. They refused to accept logical arguments and simply wanted to push forward their POVs without any evidence and to make matters worse Dbachmann allowed this to happen and began sympathising with them. He has a lot to learn about his responsibilities as an admin as does Zora.

Personally, I have seen nothing more than a bunch of anti-Hindu chauvinists, the admins in question, who wish to disregard the truth, disregard any academic references and simply accept and support the views of a bunch of Mujaheddin-type individuals who have admitted to their justification of Jihad in the Rajput archive debate and wish to hijack an identity which clearly and historically does not belong to them, but belongs to the Hindus.

Dbachmann’s intervention according to him, dates back to Dec 13, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29 ) thus he disregards what has been going on before that, and how this situation escalated and got out of hand. He does not have adequate knowledge on this topic nor does Zora and yet are quick to judge the Hindu side. If Wikipedia is Anti-Hindu than it should openly state so, that will allow individuals such as myself to leave and not have to read racist, insulting terms against my ethnic identity.

Dbachmann began shielding a bunch of hoodlums and giving them a free hand to hijack an article which has enough academic information out their, that this debate could have easily been settled. Instead, with a total disregard for the truth, he allowed Khurram and Raja to go ahead and bash away at the history of the Rajputs.

Furthermore, it absolutely disgusts me that no one on the Pakistani side bothers to do any research and simply loves to dictate history at their convenience. Khurram for one keeps claiming his assumptions and yet provides no evidence on any historical material, when presented with evidence from Islamic sources, this group brushed off this as well to their convenience.

I understand the Shivraj and others may not entirely understand how to present an academic piece in an impartial manner. Furthermore, I can understand that Shivraj and others in his group may have allowed their passions to get the better of them; however, if one follows the debate since the beginning, you see how the tone is set and how the anti-Hindu agenda begins to form.

In the same way these Mujaheddin types could not tolerate the existence of a Buddhist culture in pre-Islamic Afghanistan, thus destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas (by the Taliban, if you even bother to understand the mind set of Khurram and his gang, then read this article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/archaeology/2001-03-22-afghan-buddhas.htm ), in the same sense, they wish to eradicate any trace of authentic Rajput identity, culture, codes, practices and beliefs by spewing their propaganda. In turn they are being supported by the likes of certain individuals who are claiming to be admins, in this case Dbachmann. Khurram, Raja and the likes have never given any sources and yet are being given shelter and allowed to constantly bash the Rajput identity, while claiming that what is being written is Anti-Islam or Anti-Muslim, meanwhile ridiculing the Mahabharata, Brahmins, “Pensioners” etc etc. If one takes time to read the whole debate, you will see plain and clearly how they are abusing this tactic while not citing any evidence for their claims. Instead they present their assumptions on what they think Hinduism is, what Gotras are and furthermore the practices and protocols among Rajputs, Brahmins and Temples are as if they are some recognized authority on this topic. Never do they give reference to their claims, nor have they provided evidence. Instead, their word (the Pakistani side) is taken and accepted by Zora and Dbachmann, while the “Nationalist fanatics or Hindu Trolls”, as Dbachmann would like to put it, are constantly asked for references which they have appropraitely given many times.

The reference to Hindus as Trolls can be seen at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisesabre#r.C4.81jput

Message title “Rajput”,

“ your presence is sorely needed here. I don't expect you get many Hindu trolls on ur:, but they really seem to flock to en:. Ultimately, they will end up at WP:RFAr if they go on like this. Their behaviour is more than enough for the arbcom to ban them, but somebody has to take the time for an arbitration case. I am committed to restoring a sane working environment at en:, where Hindus, Muslims and "whiteboys" can work together in peace. dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)”

Zora entered with a noble statement that there is no place for Communalism in Wikipedia. I totally agree that there should not be even an ounce of tolerance for Communalism, however to deny historical facts, the cultural and religious identity of a people is also a crime and equivalent to the beginnings of a genocide against a specific group’s identity. Instead of seeing what exactly was going on, she immediately chose to defend these “Taliban-type individual” and further aid their endeavours of erdicating the authentic history of the Hindu and Buddhist cultures of the North Indian regions. She stated that I am simply stating my personal viewpoint, (archive 12 statement dated 27 October 2005), however, given my family background and academic background, that is not the case. Instead, it is okay for her to have the Pakistani side further their viewpoint without any obstacles with complete disregard for academic integrity or hisorical facts and references.

I happened to glance at the debate after a conference on Rabindranath Tagore was completed at the University. I saw insults, heavy handedness, but what troubled me most was the irresponsible, partial, discriminatory nature of Dbachmann and Zora. They are admins and should act as Admins, instead they pushed their own opinions, without research, without evidence, giving a free hand to a bunch of hoodlums who wish to distort a history that is recorded and recognised in any academic environment. Zora is always quick to assume that an Indian source will probably be slanted towards Hindutva which is seen in the Rajput discussion archives, I will oocate it again.

However, one can see how the Admins are deciding to gang up against the Hindu side in favor of the Pakistanis who have still not provided references or their credentials on the matter. ( Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive13 ).

As Dbachmann has stated “This is a sad case of "wanton enabling of fools" on Wikipedia”, yes its true, many of us are fairly new to Wikipedia and perhaps may not have Dbachmann’s finesse on how to present items, however, he completely ignore what the likes of Khurram and his gang are doing. He has no regard for the truth and people who support him are not being sympathetic to the fact that there is a complete disregard for historical facts and living culture which is simply insulting to the Rajputs and Hindus in question. He is an Admin and should present himself as one.

Has he ever bothered to take a look at the Janjua article? Please note from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gurkhaboy#Jodhabai Note a message I received from Tom Radulovich, a very kind and intelligent man, who helped me in my first days in Wikipedia. From my Talk page:

Gorkhali, Thanks for your kind words, and for the book suggestions. I am not an expert, but it is also my understanding that Jodhabai was a Kachwaha, and the sister of Man Singh. I think I changed a category on the Janjua article a while back, but you should feel free to correct the reference to Jodhabai as you see fit. Tom Radulovich 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously a clear case of partiality, discrimination, complete disregard for facts, a complete slap in the face of any Rajput who wishes to write a decent article on the Rajputs. I wanted to, but with the Pakistani gang being given a “Go ahead” by the admins, even I had to just say “Whats the point, this place is for Taliban propaganda”. I decided to focus on Gurkhas and leave the Rajputs since I could see that Shivraj and others like him lost their cool completely because people were not willing to accept that Rajput is a distinctly Hindu identity, and this is accepted in all dictionaries, academic texts and all Universities in the West.

Instead, other admins did encourage me and give me hope, so I came back (to those of you who did, my sincere thanks), then after seeing the comments against Hindus and the obvious discrimination, I could not remain silent seeing what was happening. However, Dbachmann and Zora both feel that the Hindu side is nothing but a bunch of “Nationalist Fanatics” or Hindutvas. With such an attitude, I don’t see any justice for myself or others who may wish to present well written pieces as our contribution for your encyclopedia.

I want to present more evidence from the archives and the individual talk pages, but I must apologise since I do have other commitments, the most pressing one being that I am assisting in organising another medical relief camp for the Himalyas set for 2006. If I can be of any other assistance, please feel free to ask as this matter is very personal for me as well. You can contact me through Dr. O’Connell at the University of Toronto. Just show him anything I wrote and he will easily identify my style of correspondence. This is a case of partiality and discrimination with underlying prejudice against Hindus. Admins should be held to a higher standard than contributors.

- my wiki ids are as follows: Gorkhali/Gurkhaboy/Kunwarji

Gorkhali 04:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we hate jacob and vamsi

Statement by Shivraj Singh[edit]

I created the rajput page from a list of 61 books. These books are described in the references section of the rajput page. Raja,Wisesabre,Khurram,dab, Zora and some others have been revert warring. I have asked this group multiple times to provide citations to support there claims/revert wars, none has come forth yet in last four months. A micro-cosm of an example, similar to rajput page but easier to follow can be seen on Sher Shah Suri talk page. Khurram kept reverting edits, which had been sourced from books written by three scholars of history, all Phd's, one from Calcutta University, one from U Mich Ann Arbor, and one from UCal Berkeley. I asked khurram atleast a dozen times on the talk page to show some citations to support his claims/revert war but he did not come forth even once. Same thing we are seing on the rajput page. Only difference is we have more people with different names. Behavior is similar. Shivraj Singh 18:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (9/0/0/0)[edit]

Accept Fred Bauder 14:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 23:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unrecuse self from all pre-voting cases. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unrecuse. - SimonP 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unrecuse. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept by unrecusing. Charles Matthews 09:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Intervention[edit]

1) When a user, especially a previously uninvolved administrator, attempts to intervene in a dispute, requesting sources for disputed facts, removing unsourced information, adding {{fact}} templates and making other reasonable attempts to end the dispute and mobilize user's cooperation in the creation of a verifiable NPOV article, it is not acceptable to simply revert them and treat them as another disputant.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ownership of articles[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles prohibits exclusive control of articles.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editors may be banned[edit]

3) Editors who disrupt the editing of articles by aggressively editing in a point of view way may be banned from the affected articles and in extreme cases from the site.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

4) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant viewpoints regarding a subject.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Adequate sourcing of information[edit]

5) In order for information to be included in Wikipedia it must have been published in a reliable source. Sources should be cited routinely and must be should a question arise, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Information included in the article should be linked in some transparent way with specific pages in the source cited.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and discourtesy[edit]

6) Especially among users with a history of conflict, personal courtesy is required as a condition of participation on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of this dispute is Rajput and related articles. There is an "Hindus only" version and a "Muslims too" version. They can be seen side by side here.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sustained edit warring[edit]

2) Rajput was the site of sustained edit warring between the two factions until Dbachmann's intervention [6].

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Dbachmann's intervention[edit]

3) Following an intense edit war between the two factions Dbachmann protected the page on Dec 14, 2005 [7]. He unprotected on Dec 17 [8]. Added a reference section [9] (no coordination between passages in the text and passages in the references). He then marked a number of passages with the {{fact}} template [10].

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Shivraj Singh rejects Dbachmann's intervention[edit]

4) Dbachmann's intervention was rejected by Shivraj Singh who restored the Hindus only version including a long list of "references", none coordinated with the text of the article [11]. Dbachmann reverted [12] with the comment "have you ever even seen a "References" section?". Shivraj Singh reverts without comment [13] and went on editing as though nothing had happened. Wisesabre then reverted to Dbachmann's version [14]. Back to Hindus only version [15]. DPSingh then joined in, reverting to the Hindus only version [16] with the comment "rv to Shivraj Singh's article". This pattern has continued for about a week, the last reversion to the Hindus only version being made by DPSingh on December 24 [17]. At that point Zora restored "a more neutral version" [18] which seemed to end the intense revert war. However, following that time editing has been dominated by Shivraj Singh who has essentially recreated the article in its Hindu only form [19].

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

DPSingh RfC concerning Dbachmann[edit]

6) DPSingh supported by other users of the Hindu only faction created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2). This RfC was rejected by the community as ill-founded. However there was no change in the behavior of the Hindu only faction and this arbitration was requested.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppets[edit]

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and discourtesy[edit]

8) The Hindus only faction has been discourteous and made personal attacks on Islamic editors, see /Workshop.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Shivraj Singh banned from Rajput[edit]

1) Shivraj Singh (and all sockpuppets) is banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

DPSingh banned from Rajput[edit]

2) DPSingh (and all sockpuppets) is banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Gurkhaboy banned from Rajput[edit]

3) Gurkhaboy (and all sockpuppets) is banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hindus only side" users banned from Rajput[edit]

4) All users listed as the "Hindus only side" at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput/Evidence#involved_users are banned from editing Rajput and related articles.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV reminder[edit]

5) All editors of Rajput are reminded of the necessity to more or less follow the core Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Advocates of an Islamic point of view are specially reminded that Rajput is a noble Hindu caste and that the bulk of the information in the article should reflect that reality.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

DPSingh banned[edit]

Since his arbitration case, DPSingh (talk · contribs) has violated his ruling and been blocked, and then created a whole host of sockpuppets to violate his article ban, and just be generally disruptive and uncivil. See most recent socks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Rajput_case.

For continued violation of his article ban for edit warring and incivility using sockpuppets, DPSingh is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Passed 6 to 0 at 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Any party banned by this decision who violates the ban may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum ban shall increase to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput#Documentation_of_blocks_and_bans

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Documentation of blocks and bans[edit]

Place here the basis of any action taken under the provisions of any remedy under Wikipedia:Probation imposed in this matter. Include a link to a statement of all administrators supporting the action taken.

blocked DPSingh for 5 days. Offending edits: [21] [22] [23] [24]. dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]