This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Editing ban injunction[edit]

Shivraj Singh (talk · contribs)
DPSingh (talk · contribs)
Ss india (talk · contribs)
Son of Kurus (talk · contribs)
Sisodia (talk · contribs)
195.162.223.222 (talk · contribs)
Suryabandhu, Kinsman of the Sun (talk · contribs)
Indologist (talk · contribs)
220.227.238.195 (talk · contribs)
AMbroodEY (talk · contribs)
ImpuMozhi (talk · contribs)
Miljoshi (talk · contribs)
Gurkhaboy (talk · contribs)
Taaoo (talk · contribs)
Khurram (talk · contribs)
Supersaiyan (talk · contribs)
Wisesabre (talk · contribs)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This proposition hits a lot of folks not currently involved in the dispute. Fred Bauder 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks and discourtesy[edit]

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adequate sourcing of information[edit]

2) In order for information to be included in Wikipedia it must have been published in a reliable source. That source should be cited routinely and must be should a question arise, see Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editors may be banned[edit]

4) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Intervention[edit]

5) When a user, especially a perviously 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this is what happened. An more or less reasonable intervention was simply ignored. Fred Bauder 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ownership of articles[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inadequate citation of sources[edit]

2) Although cited by Shivraj Singh as being adequate [1], the references cited at Rajput in the Hindus only version [2], most of which are not readily available to English speaking users outside of India are inadequate in that there is no designation of specific language on specific pages. The alternative Muslims too (also advanced by Dbachmann [3]) version is only marginally better [4] with no page numbers but consisting mostly of books an English speaker might conveniently access. There is little if any overlap.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks and discourtesy by DPSingh[edit]

3) DPSingh has engaged in personal attacks and discourtesy [5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Argument by logic not reference[edit]

4) Rather than citing sources the disputants have relied on forceful argument from tradition [6].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks and discourtesy by Suryabandhu, Kinsman of the Sun[edit]

5) Suryabandhu, Kinsman of the Sun has made personal attacks [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possible sockpuppets[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Son of Kurus[edit]

7) Son of Kurus has been discourteous and made personal attacks directed toward Muslim users [9] [10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Intent of Son of Kurus[edit]

8) Son of Kurus has declared "..threaten us all you want..we will hang in here...and keep reverting back to and maintain an unbiased version of the page (Unbiased = non-western,non-islamic POV .)" [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

DPSingh RfC concerning Dbachmann[edit]

9) DPSingh supported by other users of the Hindu only faction created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dbachmann's intervention[edit]

10) Following an intense edit war between the two factions Dbachmann protected the page on Dec 14, 2005 [12]. He unprotected on Dec 17 [13]. Added a reference section [14] (no coordination between passages in the text and passages in the references). He then marked a number of passages with the {{fact}} template [15].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Shivraj Singh rejects Dbachmann's intervention[edit]

11) 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 [16]. Dbachmann reverted [17] with the comment "have you ever even seen a "References" section?". Shivraj Singh reverts without comment [18] and went on editing as though nothing had happened. Wisesabre then reverted to Dbachmann's version [19]. Back to Hindu's only version [20]. DPSingh then joined in, reverting to the Hindus only version [21] 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 [22]. At that point Zora restored "a more neutral version" [23] 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 [24].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Shivraj Singh banned from Rajput[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

DPSingh banned from Rajput[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gurkhaboy banned from Rajput[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dbachmann commended[edit]

6) Dbachmann is commended for his efforts to intervene in this matter and for his extra effort in bringing this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: