Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement of the Dispute[edit]

User:Dbachmann is abusing the privileges of an admin by making threats, inventing new rules to block people, inciting others by being condescending towards them personally, when they respond they are blocked, insulting the religious books of Hindus, engaging in revert wars without having a clue about what the subject at hand is, deleting his own criticism, deleting the names of supporters of this RFC and showing contempt and ridicule towards new users who take a little bit of time in figuring out how to file a RFC.

Description and Evidence of Disputed behavior[edit]

Hi,

I would like to bring to your notice the disruptive behaviour of the admin User:Dbachmann on the development of the Wikipedia article Rajput.

A Summary of charges against User:Dbachmann

Charge 1.[edit]

This user has indulged in consistent vandalism on Wikipedia page for "Rajputs" by indulging in revert wars. Here are the links of a few of his reverts. All of these reverts were without any valid explanation or an inclination to discuss the issue in talk pages. All the reverts were an attempt to replace the most agreeable version with a unfinished, unrefined and deeply disputed stub version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=31951019&oldid=31933546 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=31886107&oldid=31885866 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=31885093&oldid=31884990 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=31754025&oldid=31752713

This user has also used the same tactics against the following Hindu pages, relating to the Hare Krishna movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gouranga&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hare_Krishna&action=history


A cursory glance of this user's past contributions in wikipedia unearths some more skeletons in his cupboard. His hatred of Hindus/Hinduism is almost pathological. For example, an external link to an eminently qualified website of ‘Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture, Bangalore’ in the article Rig Veda was brusquely deleted by this user with the following grandiose explanation: rm bullsh*t link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rig_Veda&diff=prev&oldid=22388528

Then once, a factually correct statement “Many Indians regard the term "Arya" as part of their history, do not associate the term with the Nazis, and continue using it (for example the "Arya Samaj").”, was deleted without any satisfactory explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aryan&diff=prev&oldid=30003428

And that is only part of the story. His contributions are full of snide remarks against Indian nationalists like Tilak and others, and how Indians are stuck in nineteenth century debates because reprints of old books can be passed off as new books in India and so on. I wonder how did he manage to hide his colors for so long!! A full investigation of his edits is sure to unearth more hate and filth.

-- sisodia

Charge 2.[edit]

This user has also shown a total contempt for civil behaviour. His language has been condescending in the least and plainly abusive frequently. He resorted to petty name calling and questioned the religious beliefs of authors.

  • "So they had "Universities" in India, in 500 BC? Good for them; too bad you were not there to get some education." [1]
  • "For the nth time, add your sad stuff, but don't remove the precious few sourced statements." [2]
  • "since you (Singhs) are clearly incapable of as much as adding a book to the references section properly, I have done that for you now." [3]
  • "Seriously, are you a 12 year old? You cannot follow the most simple instructions, not even when trying to file an RfC against me. You must be either a troll, or incredibly limited in cognitive skills." [4]

I posted information on User:Dbachmann's talk page that I have filed an RFC against him and he responded with this on my talk page:

  • "I am looking forward to seeing trolls and fools like you permabanned without so much decorum" [5]


User:Dbachmann refers to the contributers with a certain POV as "Hindutva cruft". Hindutva is a right wing religious ideology bordering on facism. So in short calling somebody Hindutva cruft is tantamount to calling him a facist.[6]

User:Dbachmann calls a certain POV as "Hindu POV" and distputes the ancestry of Hindu Rajputs regardless of the fact that it is universal fact that Rajputs are basically a Hindu community. He gives us an impression of having strong anti-Hindu bias.


I was met with similar treatment after 'dab' targetted the Hare Krishna and Gouranga pages

In the Hare Krishna talk page, dab made claims that:

1) Religious leader and scholar, and founder of the International society for Krishna Consciousness A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was "I'd say he was making stuff up as he went along".

2) Claimed I believed A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was God : "it isn't "wrong" if you believe Prabhupada is God."

Then in a personal message he states I am unrefined and belligerent:

3) "I would have expected a rather more refined and less belligerent behaviour from anyone representing them"

DBachmann made this highly offensive remark in talk pages. "there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access." -- sisodia

Charge 3.[edit]

This user has grossly abused his previleges as an administrator of Wikipedia to block valuable contributors of Wikipedia at his whim. User:DPSingh and User:Shivraj_Singh were blocked without rhyme or reason.

Charge 4.[edit]

This user's knowledge of the subject of this article is very poor; he even confuses well established chronologies like of Ashoka's reign and Gita's compilation. Yet he insists on having the last word on the article Rajput.

Adapted from [7]

Charge 5[edit]

User:Dbachmann deleted the criticism of his work on the talk page. [8]

"sisodia_the_outlaw" (211.118.172.74 (talk · contribs))

Charge 6[edit]

User:Dbachmann makes threats of blocks against users who do not agree with his POV pushing. Please follow this link. Another admin had to set him straight by telling him since User:Dbachmann is promoting his own POV on rajput page he should refrain from blocking anyone. [9]

Charge 7[edit]

User:Dbachmann deleted User:Shivraj Singh from Users Who Endorse These Views section so that requisite numbers of support do not show up. Now he will spin some story to defend himself.

Look at line 61 of the this diff:

[10]

Charge 8[edit]

User:Dbachmann is a clueless historian. Exhibits a deep prejudice and a racist view point. Good references are trashed. Yet he insists on pushing his references eventhough he has not read a single book that he claims as his reference.

at least I can quote books, unlike people who apparently think "Maheca Rathaurom ka mula itihasa: Ravala Mallinatha ke vamsaja - Maheca, *Baramera, Pokarana, Kotariya aura" is acceptable as an encyclopedic reference. dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with this reference? This is a well researched book on Mallinath a very famous Rathore and his descendants. There origins, there wars, there relations with present rulers of Jodhpur and Bikaner are described in this book. This prejudice that you bring here because history in other then English does not make sense to you is the source of all problems. Dude I think we have had enough of you here. You better find a different page where your views might make more sense. Shivraj Singh 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite properly. Dan100 (Talk) 15:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charge 9[edit]

User:Dbachmann is supporting people on rajput page who have just in the recent past claimed that Islamic Jihadis (by implication Islamic terrorists of the world) are Rajputs. How can an admin push the POV of such a group of people?

"All these points prove that a Rajput is a product of both nature and nurture. Born into a house of ideals, raised with a Martial upbringing with a strong sense of honour and nobility. Thus we Muslim Rajputs may not be Kshatriyas, but we are Mujahids, which means 'one who engages in Jihad' and the ideals of a Mujahid are much more strenuous and honour bound in the sense that we must act with the knowledge that we will be accountable to our Lord one day..... . It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar. A perfect example of a perfect Mujahid Royal can be seen in Sultan Salauddin Yusuf Ayyubi of the Crusades who liberated the Holy Land from the Crusaders."

[11]

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31751684&oldid=31733532
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31755837&oldid=31754841
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31499998&oldid=31493272
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=32134602&oldid=32132103
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=32011979&oldid=32005846
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=32003947&oldid=32002992
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARajput&diff=31888191&oldid=31886387

Lot many more times people tried to reason with this guy but no luck.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. DPSingh 16:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Shivraj Singh 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Suryabandhu 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu[reply]
  4. sisodia
  5. Ss india 10:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GourangaUK 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 05:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Can u imagine 1 billion people laughing at ur ignorance to consider Rajputs close to Muslims.. God give u knowledge to overcome such ignorance..Krishna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.13.130 (talk • contribs)
  2. No point in debating.. Today they are calling themselves Muslim Rajputs, tomorrow they'll call themselves as Muslim Catholic....These so called MRs have great poverty of intellect...IndiaSingh
  3. Sun doesn't rise in West, no matter how much we argue. The very concept of "Muslim Rajputs" is baseless and vague. As is rightly said, "Little knowledge is a dangerous thing", therefore those Muslims who are confused of their identity should try harder, rather than getting into the delusion that they are Rajput.....Sarangdevot
  4. Gorkhali 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC) I was a part of this debate in its early days, I was personally attacked, insulted, my family insulted and although I have recognition in my work and research, along with my own family history and lineage (which Khurram and Raja so eloquently attacked and ridiculed, so much for them claiming to be Rajputs), about Rajputs from the Professor Emeritus Dr. Joseph T. O'Connell, former Chair of the South Asian Studies Department at the University of Toronto, I have seen nothing more than a bunch of anti-Hindu chauvinists who wish to disregard the truth, disregard any academic references and simply accept the views of a bunch of Mujaheddin who wish to hijack an identity which clearly and historically does not belong to them.[reply]

Dbachmann’s intervention dates back to Dec 13, thus he disregards what has been going on before that, and how this situation escalated and got out of hand. You 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, you 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 other side bothers to do any research and simply loves to dictate history at 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. Well 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 is taken and the “Nationalist fanatics as usual” as Dbachmann would like to put it are constantly askd for references which they have appropraitely given many times.

Zora jumped the gun when she stated 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. 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.

As you have 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 your finesse on how to present items, however, you completely ignore what the likes of Khurram and his gang are doing. You have no regard for the truth and people who support you are not being sympathetic to the fact that this complete disregard for historical facts and living culture is simply insulting.

Have you ever bothered to take a look at the Janjua article? You can pick out the inaccuracies with a shovel. However, why bother, you have to fight the “Nationalist Fanatics”.

Again, if you need to question my credentials on the topic of Rajputs, you can easily contact Professor Emeritus Dr. Joseph T. O'Connell, former Chair of the South Asian Studies Department at the University of Toronto. If you are worried that I may be a “Nationalistic Fanatic” you can contact me through Father G. Carparelli, Caritas Foundation, Canada and ask the good Father how you can contact the “Nepalese Buddhist Doctor”. If you are in Calcutta, India, you can also reach me by contacting Father G. Carparelli through Mother Teresa’s Mission to which I will be returning to very shortly to continue my work in the Medical field. That should relax you a bit before discussing the matter with someone who understands what the “Nationalist Fanatics” are trying to defend. They are trying to defend the truth. -Gorkhali/Gurkhaboy/Kunwarji

Response[edit]

Nationalist fanatics as usual. My intervention dates to Dec 13th, seeing talk headings like "fellow rajputs ignore Muslims". I protected and patiently explained policy. While User:Taaoo showed all prepared to collaborate, the Singhs (DPSingh (talk · contribs), Shivraj_Singh (talk · contribs)) stubbornly continue to reject all policy or wikiquette (I will spare you the PA diffs, just skim the talkpage; compare niceties like "whiteboy sucking up to muslims" and "racist bigot" to examples of my "contempt for civility" exhibited in "charge 2" above). The sad state of this RfC (I had to help formatting it), with all the anon ranting is gives you a good idea of the encyclopedic quality of users' contributions. This is a sad case of "wanton enabling of fools" on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 15:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with four tildas):

  1. --Ghirla | talk 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bonaparte talk 16:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Alexander 007 17:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Having worked with Dbachmann before and seen him work on many articles, I find the accusations against him here uncompelling. This appears to be a case of plain POV-pushers ganging up against an editor who opposes them.[reply]
  4. --خرم Khurram 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Since I know the debate going on in the mentioned talk page, I cannot agree more to the above statement. The main drive of the accusations in thir RFC is anti Muslim and anti Islam without any proof or reference and is based upon religious rhetoric. The same is the issue that has hijacked the talk mentioned and the corresponding article. User Dbachmann has tried to put the discussion and article on the path but was bitten hard like so many other before him.[reply]
  5. -- --Raja 03:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. u p p l a n d 08:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC). Dbachmann is one of the best editors in the Humanities, an area Wikipedia is weak in. Wikipedia can not afford having people like him driven away, and it really needs a more efficient way to deal with disruptive nationalist or religious POV-pushers who refuse to accept scholarly standards or Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. u p p l a n d 08:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lupo 09:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Petty RfC brought forth agaist an excellent contributor. Utterly unwarranted.[reply]
  8. Well these guys are just POV pushers. Shivraj_Singh (talk · contribs · block log) has been blocked 4 times by different admins and Sisodia (talk · contribs · block log) has been blocked permanantly for POV pushing and insulting fellow editors. According to them no one other then Indians have the right to edit Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Any foreign intervention to them is just Muslim Pov protection. They have previously humiliated Zora (talk · contribs) for the same reasons. and according to them Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) should apologize to user sisodia for blocking him[12].
    Shivraj singh is not only facing revert war at Rajput but also on rest of pages where he is contributing.(see his contributions) Wisesabre 07:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Paul B 23:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Having just encountered Shivraj_Singh (talk · contribs) I can understand Dbachmann's expressions of frustration. He is impervious to reason.[reply]
    I should add that under Charge 1 it is stated that Dab deleted a sentence from the Aryan aticle "without explanation" (i.e. "Many Indians regard the term "Arya" as part of their history, do not associate the term with the Nazis, and continue using it (for example the "Arya Samaj")."). In fact I deleted this sentence, with an explanation, and comment on the talk page. It was readded with a minor alteration, whereupon I moved it (with explanation again) to a more appropriate place. It is still in the article. In fact it's the concluding sentence. Dab did nothing other than agree with my comments on Talk:Aryan. Paul B 16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This RfC reads like an indictment, suffers from incivilities & personal attacks on authors' part. El_C 03:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. dab has lost his temper occasionally, but he had immense provocation. Wikipedia needs to do better at controlling POV warriors who try to get their way by name-calling, intimidation, and revert wars. BTW, I don't feel humiliated. Zora 19:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Dab has been extremely provocated by the editors mentioned by him. They seem to be not amenable to reason at all. I'd strongly support action against those POV pushers. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Wiglaf 09:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mceder 06:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Dab's a good editor and admin, and I trust his judgment. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. What SlimVirgin said. --Angr (t·c) 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. What Uppland said. Dab's one of our best and most conscientious admins, and Wikipedia is in his debt for giving time and energy to keeping these inveterate POV warriors at bay. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --StanZegel (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I've no involvement in this. But in my experience Dab is generally a pretty even-handed editor. Even a cursory examination of the links provided in the accusations reveals rather stark POV-pushing by the accusers. older≠wiser 01:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. -Will Beback 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Keep up the good work DAB! It seems these days, you don't really matter here until you have a baseless Rfc filed against you.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Dab is a competent (and in my experience) fair admin. I see no proof of wrongdoing in the links, in fact he seems to show a great deal of patience given the provocation. Giano | talk 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Dab is competent, civil and does not lose his temper easily. That he sometimes lost it in this case, is rather a sign that there has been extreme provocation. I find the evidence given here uncompelling. Something should be done about these POV warriors, not about Dab. — mark ✎ 11:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Agree. Lukas 14:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Is this Rfc a poorly conceived joke? The people leveling these laughable 'charges' seem to have a conception of logic, reason, and the scientific method on par with the old RC inquisitors in Spain centuries ago. Someone please do us a favour and get this 'Rfc' finished up and tucked away. It is embarassing to see anyone even taking it seriously. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I have full confidence on Dab's edits, and his neutrality. --Ragib 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. — goethean ॐ 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I have no frame of reference for the vast majority of this debate. I have no opinion except that I feel admins should be held to a higher standard than those who simply contribute. In reading the talk pages I find Dbachmann condescending, bordering on rude. I don't see neutrality by a long shot. Anyone who feels so passionately about a subject should not be doing adminstrative functions on articles on that topic.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Ifnord 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CarbonCopy (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Niffweed17 06:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Peyna 02:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the concept of muslim Rajput much but i have read somewhere that once a national leader of Pakistan appreciated the role of indian origins muslims (migrated hindus) and said something like that muslim rajputs are great asset of pakistan and suddenly some one remarked that the leader off the two letters. if its true, then i will believe the concept of muslim Rajput — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.16.115 (talk • contribs)

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_(2)&oldid=1089037337"