Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Evidence

Not sure who "categorized" users on the RfAr page, and on what bases? (appears to be as per speculations over a user's ethnicity!?). As mentioned on the talk page of a related RfC [1], I have not been a contributor to the content of Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). My "involvement" was restricted to Talk:Rajput from 21 December 2005, 21:01 to 25 December 2005, 14:47; the nature of which was to request all the users to discuss their point (whatever it may be) before going for countless reverts (am saving you the load at the moment of all the diff from Talk:Rajput and from the talk-pages of other "involved" user). In any case, I do not believe myself "involved" with the article in the sense it is being discussed here. Thanks. --ΜιĿːtalk 08:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who categorized you? Welcome to the black-and-white world of Mr. Dbachmann. There is no scope of any shades of gray here. If people don’t fall into easily understood categories, categories are felled upon them. So in this neatly compartmentalized world the equation goes like this

hindu sounding name = hindu = indian = s**** (expletive) = hindu nationalist

By objecting the category assigned to you, you are upsetting a sorted and ordered world. Desist!!

Sisodia 02:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the presentation in question is my take on the situation. You made a mess of the Rajput article, and I am trying to disentangle it here. It is my best attempt at objectivity based on a cursory reading of the archives and I am ready to admit that I should not have included Miljoshi as involved. The categorization should give somebody unacquainted with the article's history a rough understanding of the structure of the pool of editors who commented on Talk:Rajput; I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything. You had weeks and weeks to present your own view next to mine. I am extremely fed up with the Rajput article and Wikidisputes in general and I have no interest to even look at the Rajput article in the near future, but if my efforts to see it through with this rfar result in restrictions allowing a sane development I will not consider my time invested a total loss. dab (ᛏ) 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying your position is the sane position though you want to push umpteen references on rajput page without having read a single one of them! Is this what admins should do in an encyclopedia?

In addition you show racist and contemptous attitude towards Indians.

Anyone who disagrees with you is not sane or out of depth including the arb-com. As an admin why are you challenging the validity of arb-com? [2] ...... I am not bothered (but I wish the arbcom would look at some context. They are clearly overwrought and out of their depth all too often); If Fred does get his way, you can always re-nominate me, so it will be down to the community in the end. .......... It is very easy to keep blaming others all the time. Perhaps little self introspection required on your part.

Rajput article is in excellent shape now. It has all the references and I am in the process of updating the page numbers. Just my 2 cents. Shivraj Singh 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]