Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Evidence#involved users

Users involved in {{article|Rajput}}

• "Hindus only side" ('the team')
• {{Vandal|Shivraj_Singh}}
• {{Vandal|DPSingh}}
• {{Vandal|Ss_india}}
• {{Vandal|Son_of_Kurus}}
• {{Vandal|Sisodia}} (editing only logged out now) {{Vandal|195.162.223.222}}
• {{Vandal|Suryabandhu}}, {{Vandal|Kinsman_of_the_Sun}}
• any number of anon IPs and throwaway accounts, {{Vandal|Indologist}}, {{Vandal|shonan}} {{Vandal|220.227.238.195}}
• "Hindu side"
• {{Vandal|AMbroodEY}}
• {{Vandal|ImpuMozhi}})
• {{Vandal|Miljoshi}} (See: Talk page)
• {{Vandal|Gurkhaboy}}
• "Muslims too side"
• {{Vandal|Taaoo}} aka {{Vandal|Khurram}}
• {{Vandal|Supersaiyan}} aka {{Vandal|Raja}}
• {{Vandal|Wisesabre}}
• Moderating:
• {{User|FireFox}}
• {{User|Zora}}

• {{article|History of Rajputs}}
• {{article|Rajputs and Invasions of India}} -- topically, a sub-article of the History article, and thus a sub-sub article of Rajput. Note that the Singh's edit warring consists in essentially replacing Rajput with the content of this article (which itself needs massive cleanup).
• {{article|Kshatriya}}
• {{article|Muslim Rajputs}} -- the pov fork (material the "Hindus only team" wouldn't allow on Rajput)
• {{article|Rajputana}}
• {{article|Rajputs and Zoroastrianism}}
• {{article|Rajputs and Buddhism}}
• {{article|Rajput clans}} and sub-articles
• {{article|Rajputani}}

A brief history of Rajput

• Talk:Rajput/Archive01 -- my brief involvement with the article (concerned with the etymology of the word rajput), back in August 2004. I was not watching the page after that
• Talk:Rajput/Archive04 -- September 2005, first involvement of Shivraj, lenghty, unsigned swathes of text; the "Muslim question" begins to hold the article hostage, but the discussions are still reasonable
• Talk:Rajput/Archive06 -- discussion becomes more heated, still unsigned swathes of text, first mention of "Muslim hoards" :)
• Talk:Rajput/Archive11 -- October 05 now, still unreadable swathes, the Muslim question compeltely dominates the discussion now, much mud is slung
• Talk:Rajput/Archive12 -- 12 October, intervention by {{User|goethean}}. the discussion becomes readable. By 27 October, goethean is showing signs of fraying, and {{User|Zora}} joins the debate.
• Talk:Rajput/Archive13 -- November now, revert war in full swing. At this point, it is a question of which side outnumbers the other. {{User|Shivraj Singh}} is joined by {{User|Ss india}} and assorted anons.
• Talk:Rajput/Archive14 -- 9 November, sockpuppetry discussions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=27837905 19:34, November 9, 2005 UTC] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=27846523 19:54, November 9, 2005 UTC], "Sisodia" {{User|67.109.157.66}} appears and niceties escalate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=27852424 01:10, November 10, 2005 UTC]
• Talk:Rajput/Archive15 -- 17 November
• Talk:Rajput/Archive16 -- 7 December
• 9 December, first appearance of DPSingh with a still very reasonable, if clearly partisan, statement [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=prev&oldid=30703649 11:49, December 9, 2005 UTC]

• DPSingh begins revert-warring on the article and posts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=prev&oldid=31165167 this]
• December 13,14 - {{User|Taaoo}} asks for admin intervention on WP:AN/I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=31240098&oldid=31235598 21:15, December 13, 2005 UTC]; *my first involvement, insisting on NPOV & Verifiability [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31219141&oldid=31201724 18:36, December 13, 2005 UTC], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31303713&oldid=31303260 07:56, December 14, 2005 UTC], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31303713&oldid=31303260 07:56, December 14, 2005 UTC], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31320037&oldid=31319824 12:38, December 14, 2005 UTC]
• December 14
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31289767&oldid=31238258 04:44 UTC] - sisodia admitting he is permabanned already
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31315277&oldid=31311167 11:20 UTC] - ss india continuing unimpressed by calls for citations
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31321069&oldid=31320037 12:54 UTC] - a "get lost" and another call to his "fellow rajputs" from DPS
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31322804 15:10 UTC], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31331880 15:17 UTC], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31355721 18:57 UTC] - Dbachmann protects the article, still patiently reiterating basic policy
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31355721&oldid=31332403 18:40 UTC] - AMbroodEY suspects "mods sucking upto to Muslims"
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31353448 18:40 UTC], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31357691 19:26 UTC] - conciliatory tones and attempts to cite sources from Wisesabre
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31369791 20:35 UTC] - conciliatory tones from Taaoo
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31371641 21:42 UTC] - Shivraj Singh claims he has quoted "61 books". these are the "Refrences" section on "his" version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=31319912], an unwikified list of Hindi titles, the majority without recognizable years, publishers or ISBNs, and with no indication which source was used for which statement.
• December 15
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31379228 03:23 UTC] - signs of good faith from the "Hindu" camp
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31440331 09:28 UTC], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31448857 09:33 UTC] - nobody seems to be really into getting down to quoting sources
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31452587 10:40 UTC] - another call to stick to policy assuming good faith, and since neither side has shown any interest in quoting sources since I protected the article, I attempt to show by example what we mean by "citation" and "attribution" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31453704] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31457060] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31465554], googling for ISBNs and compiling a sample bibliography [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31465797] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31466864], copying the relevant text I found in one of these [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31469785] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31482050]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31453704 10:50 UTC] - "shonan" trolling [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29] (misatrributing statements from archive01)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31467496 14:11 UTC] - Dbachmann is getting disgruntled at the complete lack of collaboration wrt WP:CITE
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31486242 17:12 UTC] - Taaoo acknowledges WP:CITE
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31490734 17:58 UTC] - Shivraj Singh doesn't; "Bachman" is advised to "stay out of it" rather than "doing a smart grep on the internet" (aka looking up and citing literature)
• December 15, 16
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31518139 21:37, December 15 UTC], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31590006 10:24, December 16 UTC] - DBachmann looks for any other Hindu voices acknowledging policy (in vain)

• December 16
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31595708 11:18 UTC] - rudeness resurfacing
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31598418 11:30 UTC], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31606582 14:11 UTC] - Dbachmann beginning to lose patience
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31634155 18:19 UTC] - yes! after 3 days, I got an anon to refer to a published source

• December 17
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31664123 11:53 UTC] - my efforts are not well received by sisodia, basically telling the "white man" to leave the article to the pure blooded Rajputs
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31722861 12:07 UTC] - untouched by argument or plea, DPS reiterates his conviction, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31723715 12:12 UTC] and throws in some namecalling for good measure
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=31732667&oldid=31330739 14:32 UTC] - my "involvement": inserting the meagre results of the debate so far in readable form into the article, putting {{tl|fact}} to the statements I think it transpired is what people are disputing. Talk:Rajput/Archive17
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31902047 23:42 UTC] - more trolling
• Dbachmann, labelled "white racist" for his pains is getting annoyed with the tag team [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31723907][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31730847] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31753729][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31754246] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=31755837]
• In the meantime, the article is being reverted to and fro regardless of added references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&offset=20051218171201&action=history]. That's right: all this debate leads to no effect on the article. They debate in circles on talk and stubbornly revert the article.

• protection [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=32087776]
• more abuse from DPS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=32090673] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=32091571] "racist bigot", "muslim POV mongers and whiteboys"

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2): originally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&diff=next&oldid=32055337] posted by sisodia (a user who admits he is a banned "outlaw"), and formatted by DPSingh into something roughly resembling an RfC, endorsed by the Singhs, SS india and two or three anons [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29&oldid=32256796]
• My take on the outcome of my "RfC" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=32592324&oldid=32591867]
• DPS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=32498274&oldid=32488611] and SS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=32563590&oldid=32562000] really getting vitriolic

I think you are getting the idea now. Just the rough outlines of happenings since Christmas

• FireFox reprotects and introduces {{article|Rajput/temp}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=32762989&oldid=32759474]
• interestingly, nobody bothers about the temp page. After I initialized the page with the "baseline" version of the precious few references collected so far [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput/temp&oldid=32786065], a total of five edits are made over the following week, and none after January 3. The temp talkpage remains equally deserted, while namecalling continues on Talk:Rajput.
• FireFox blocks DPS for PA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=32782667&oldid=32782395]
• 29 Dec: this RfAr accepted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=33061532&oldid=32865848]

• {{User|Dmcdevit}} unprotects [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=34219338&oldid=32611276], unfortunately without a rationale or conditions on talk, or reference to poor neglected Raput/temp.
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=34280819&oldid=34219338 immediately], SS reinstates his tired old edit warrior's version
• as of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=34482208 Jan 9], the Singhs own the field, apparently, at this point, stubbornness wins out over policy or wikiquette.

• debate out of balance. What I am documenting above is not a good faith discussion. The "Hindus only" tag team may be editing in good faith in the sense that they honestly believe that no Muslim should be allowed to touch "their" article, but they are not even near recognizing basic WP policy. There is no constructive attempt at collaborating. "Hindus only" editors do not seem to mind having the article protected, as long as they can keep using the talkpage as a forum for asserting their convictions.
• situation is not symmetrical. Both sides have made personal attacks, but the "Hindus only team" has been clearly more abusive, disruptive and provocative
• sock question. I recognize that the "Hindus only team" consists of several people, probably coordinated via an online forum (someone with knowledge of Hindi would have to attempt identifying this forum, or, more simple, the arbcom may check the "referrer" strings in the weblog which will probably reveal how the anons "found" the article). It is not clear, however, how many people the "team" consists of. This alone is disruptive under the circumstances. I think it likely that Shivraj and DP Singh are two different people, but regarding "sisodia", "ss india", "shonan" etc., I can only guess. For this reason, I will continue to use the handle "Hindus only team" to refer to this diffuse group. (the suspicion is straightforward that the "SS" users (Shivraj Singh, SiSodia, SS India) are sockpuppets of each other, but seeing the equally abusive nature of other anon users, this is uncertain, the "online forum / meatpuppet" hypothesis is sufficient to account for the observed behaviour of editors)
• my own role. naturally, I expect the arbcom to critically review my own behaviour in this. I maintain that what I did was a good faith and dedicated admin interevention. On 17 Dec, deciding to "lead by example" (illustrating what we mean by WP:5P), I became arguably "involved", and I admit to losing some of my cool under intense provocation Dec 17-25. After the filing of the Singh's "RfC", I have not taken administrative action, and by filing this RfAr recognize myself as involved party (although, in my view, on the "pro WP policy" side; I have no preference on the "Muslim Rajput" question)
• arbcom measures are a necessity. The "Hindus only team" needs to be contained by arbcom measures if the article is to make progress . DPSingh has clearly moved beyond the realm of good faith or constructive editing (even descending into wikistalking me, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hare_Krishna&diff=33480783&oldid=33002028][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hare_Krishna&diff=prev&oldid=32593046][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahasranama&diff=prev&oldid=33480564], but this is beyond the scope of this rfar), as have various anons and throwaway accounts. Shivraj Singh has at least shown utter stubbornness and consistent disregard for basic policy. This should result in conditional bans and/or probation to buy the bona fide editors an opportunity to make progress. Also, mediating admins should be given privileges to block disruptive editors on sight, and refactor or roll back unconstructive edits to the talkpage (and block for opposition). Without such relatively harsh measures, this persistent "war" for a "pure Hindu Rajput version", as several months' experience has shown, cannot be contained without permanent protection of the article.

dab (ᛏ) 18:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

{{NOINDEX}}