Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence (word count: 999) presented by Fowler&fowler

Dab's edits in Afrocentrism helped improve a POV-infested article

It is my claim that Dab's edits helped improve a POV-infested article and (although there are many examples), I will focus on just two sentences (a. the lead sentence and b. another sentence involving the expression "paradigmatic shift") to demonstrate this.

Example (a) Lead sentence

• 21:11, 5 November 2007 (before Dab's edit), the sentence read: "Afrocentrism is a controversial approach to the study of world history ..."
• 21:16, 5 November 2007: Dab changes sentence to: "Afrocentrism is a controversial ideology ... often involving pseudohistorical claims regarding Ancient Egypt."
• For the next week: lot of back and forth between these two versions of the lead sentence.
• 12:51 14 November 2007, the sentence is changed by user:deeceevoice to: "Afrocentricity, or Afrocentrism, is a controversial, ethnocentric approach to the study of history ..." (Edit summary: "if Eurocentrism is merely 'ethnocentric,' then so is Afrocentrism")
• 13:01 14 November 2007, the sentence is changed by Dab to: "Afrocentricity or Afrocentrism is an ethnocentric cultural movement ..." (Edit summary: ("sure, it is ethnocentric. But it has nothing to do with the "study of history", it's a cultural movement."))
• 13:04 14 November 2007), user:Ramdrake reverts back to user:deeceevoice's version.
• For the next three days, the page is edited by users Ramdrake, futurebird, Parkwells, user:Wikidudeman and others and no changes are made to the lead sentence.
• 11:13 17 November 2007, Jeeny changes the sentence back to a revised version of Dab's: "Afrocentricity, or Afrocentrism, is a controversial cultural movement ..."
• Today 04:34, 4 December 2007, the lead sentence reads: "Afrocentricity, or Afrocentrism, is a cultural movement ..."

How does another tertiary source, Encyclopaedia Britannica, describe Afrocentrism? In his signed article on "Afrocentrism," Gerald Early begins with:

Afrocentrism (is a) cultural and political movement ... According to Afrocentrism, African history and culture began in ancient Egypt, which was the birthplace of world civilization. Egypt presided over a unified black Africa until its ideas and technologies were stolen and its record of accomplishments obscured by Europeans.

Clearly Early regards it as a cultural and political movement, therefore more an ideology or cultural movement (Dab's versions) than an (academic) approach to the study of history (user:deeceevoice's version, which had the tacit support of user:Ramdrake, user:futurebird and others). Furthermore, Dab's initial inclusion of Ancient Egypt was not unjustified, since Early not only mentions it himself, but also suggests that Afrocentrism is not entirely a rigorous discipline.

Similarly, Concise Britannica says:

Cultural, political, and ideological movement. ... Rooted in historical black nationalist movements such as Ethiopianism, Pan-Africanism, and Negritude, Afrocentrism asserts the cultural primacy of ancient Egypt and is seen as a spur to political activism.

Again: much closer to Dab's version than that of his interlocutors in this dispute who have been accusing Dab of POV-pushing.

Example (b) "Paradigmatic shift"

• 11:54 14 November 2007, user:deeceevoice changed Dab's sentence, "Therefore, Afrocentricity aims to shift the focus from a European-centered history to an African-centered history," to the sentence, "Therefore, Afrocentricity is a paradigmatic shift from a European-centered history ..." (with edit summary, "It's a paradigm.")
• Today, 13:15, 5 December 2007, that sentence is only slightly different.

There are two problems with the sentence:

1. (Minor) The common expression is paradigm shift, not "paradigmatic shift." This is because "paradigmatic" also means (OED), "serving as a pattern; exemplary; typical." So, "paradigmatic shift" could mean "exemplary shift," or "typical shift," which is not the intent here (but rather, "shift in paradigm").
2. (Major) Although "paradigm shift," is used informally in ordinary language, it has a specialized meaning: (OED) "a conceptual or methodological change in the theory or practice of a particular science or discipline"). Dab's version ("... aims to shift the focus from ...") is more neutral, while user:deeceevoice's version, by representing "Afrocentrism" to be a major change in methodology or outlook, constitutes a POV. The current version, while an improvement, nonetheless, lets linger the impression that Afrocentrism might be an established intellectual discipline with a well-defined methodology, rather than something less rigorous, such as a "cultural, political, and ideological movement" (Britannica).

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Last updated: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

user:futurebird's presentation has minimized user:deeceevoice's disruptiveness

In her statement and evidence, user:futurebird gives this example of Dab's effort to "shame" deeceevoice, remarks that she/he later removed from the talk page. She/he failed to mention (let alone censure or delete) deeceevoice's remarks immediately before Dab's (to bait him) and immediately after (to rub it in): for example:

• these ("time to put up or shut up"), or
• these ("Gee, looks like someone's getting a little twitchy/bitchy when called to account. ;p") (with edit summary, "bitchiness, ad hominem attack. so-ooo unbecoming! tsk, tsk, tsk"), or
• and these ("latest hissy fit").

Why were these examples not presented? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Bakasuprman used the opportunity of the recent RfC to take pot-shots at Dab

Although user:Bakasuprman showed no eagerness to join this RfArb until his hand was forced by ArbCom, he had no such hesitation in the recently concluded RfC, where in his comments he was comfortable saying: "Dbachmann's pernicious racism and obvious incivility is a noxious menace on the India related pages..." user:Bakasuprman, also used the opportunity to bring up Dab's "sh**hole" remarks from 2005, and in so doing, subtly distorted Dab's comments to, "He refers to India as a "sh**hole." As I have said elsewhere, while Dab may not have used the best choice of words, he was really trying to grapple there with something that other observers of India have noted, for example in India: A Million Mutinies Now or The Argumentative Indian, namely the emergence, in the public discourse in India, of myriad forms of cultural, regional, national, religious, or linguistic chauvinism. When those dynamics play themselves out in a Wikipedia edit war, it becomes difficult for an administrator to make sense of them, much less fix them (see statement of Aksi great in the Hkelkar2 arbitration). During the last twelve months alone, ArbCom has examined these issues at least four times in the cases of Hkelkar, user:Bharatveer, user:Freedom skies, and Hkelkar2. I feel user:Bakasuprman's intermittent sniping at Dab needs to be examined more closely, and a determination needs to be made whether his comments in the recent RfC constitute disruptive behavior, especially in light of the notice given to user:Bakasuprman at the end of the Hkelkar2 arbitration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses

Shabby evidence presented by user:Picaroon

Some of the evidence presented by user:Picaroon about Dab's use of the rollback (against user:WIN and user:IAF) is at best shabby. Having seen the quality of edits made by users WIN and IAF on some other ancient India-related articles, all I can say is that their modus operandi involves locating obscure (non-mainstream) Hindu nationalist references (that no self-respecting academic would be caught dead quoting) and then merrily using them again and again. It might not be vandalism per se, but it comes awfully close. For example, in one of a series of repetitive edits, provided as evidence by user:Picaroon, WIN claims that the Rig Veda was composed in 4000 BCE (in contrast to the 2nd millennium BCE proposed by Dab). Well, what does Encyclopaedia Britannica say about the "Vedas"? Here is the first paragraph: " a collection of poems or hymns composed in archaic Sanskrit and known to the Indo-European-speaking peoples who entered India during the 2nd millennium BCE." Here is Britannica's "Indian History" page: "Composed in archaic, or Vedic, Sanskrit, generally dated between 1500 and 800 BC, and transmitted orally, ... (by) the Indo-European-speaking people known as Aryans, ... who entered India from the Iranian regions." And, here is Encarta Encyclopedia: "The four Vedas were composed in Vedic, an early form of Sanskrit. The oldest portions are believed by scholars to have originated largely with the Aryan invaders of India some time between 1500 and 1000 BC." And here is Columbia Encyclopedia: "The Veda is the literature of the Aryans who invaded NW India c.1500 B.C. and pertains to the fire sacrifice that constituted their religion." Finally, here is the Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia: "Any of a group of sacred hymns and verses composed in archaic Sanskrit, probably in the period 1500-1200 BC." user:WIN and user:IAF, on the other hand, claim that there was no Indo-European migration into India, that Sanskrit, Vedas, Hinduism are all native to India (i.e. without any non-Indian influences); the only way they can claim this is to push the dates of the composition of the Vedas back to 4000 BCE or earlier (well before the usual dates of the IE migration). If user:Picaroon thinks that this is merely a content dispute (and not trolling), I challenge her/him to find a single reference in a peer-reviewed internationally recognized journal on ancient India by a mainstream academic that subscribes to the WIN-IAF point of view. Why is it that the scholars with tenured positions at Harvard (Daniel H. H. Ingalls, M. Witzel), Chicago (J. A. B. van Buitenen, Wendy Doniger), Columbia (Barbara S. Miller, Sheldon Pollock), Berkeley (Frits Staal), Austin (Patrick Olivelle), ... all take positions opposed to WIN-IAF? Another giant conspiracy? Do you really want Wikipedia to have the only kooky entry on the Vedas (among all on-line encyclopedias)? Dab is merely trying to do his job. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

user:futurebird's incorrect characterization of Britannica's "Afrocentrism" page

user:futurebird, in her response to my evidence, claims that the Encyclopaedia Britannica article (which I cited in support of user:Dbachmann's edits) gives a dated perspective on "Afrocentrism," presenting developments only up to the 1980s. This is not true. Here is an excerpt from the last section of the Britannica page: "The central claims of Afrocentrism were prominently set forth in a controversial book, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, 2 vol. (1987–91), by white historian Martin Bernal. Since that time, Afrocentrism has encountered significant opposition from mainstream scholars who charge it with historical inaccuracy, scholarly ineptitude, and racism. In her book Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History (1996), the American classicist Mary Lefkowitz attempted to refute most of the assertions made by Bernal, Diop, and others. ... Public disputes between Lefkowitz and Afrocentrist Tony Martin created strife between black and Jewish intellectuals and made Afrocentrism vulnerable to charges of anti-Semitism. Critics further have argued that Afrocentrism's search for exclusively African values sometimes comes perilously close to reproducing racial stereotypes." Does that sound like a dated perspective of the 1980s? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Bakasuprman displays a poor understanding of reliable sources

user:Bakasuprman, in his evidence, gives an example of what he considers a "reliable source," and thereby highlights a significant problem in many controversial pages, viz. the widely differing perspectives on what constitutes "reliability." In his sub-section "Akhilleus" (Doublespeak on BLP), user:Bakasuprman says: "Certainly what was missing, was that the links to anti-Hindu were from a news source which meets WP:RS and can be published in an article." Well, that link is a shabbily written op-ed/review written by a retired civil servant who is not an expert on anything. Here are some examples of the writing – not only ungrammatical, but also bizarre – that would raise an editor's eyebrows in a high-school newspaper:

• "According to American academics discussed in this book, India's problems are in its DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid). These prejudiced and biased American scholars and some Indian scholars as well (who have sold their Hindu souls for a mess of 'American' pottage) seem to be in a state of bumptious delusion by imagining that for Western religions and societies DNA means (not Deoxyribonucleic Acid) but Divine Noble Authority."
• "Unlike in India, where only the academic study of Islam and Christianity is surreptitiously promoted by the State as a handle of 'Minority Vote-bank Politics,' in America the academic study of religion is a major discipline (which today has become a large scale anti-Hindu industry thanks to the University of Chicago and its powerful academician Wendy Doniger) involving over 8.000 university professors."
• "I am not very sure whether truth-defying and falsehood-mothering Wendy Doniger and Martha Nussbaum are aware of the following tribute paid to India by Mark Twain (1835-1910), a 'paganish' and 'heathenish' and saffronized Christian (!!) from America: 'India is, the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition." Apparently, Twain's irony was completely lost on this author.

This is the kind of piece people read to have a laugh. In fact, I would urge readers to read the entire piece in order to get an inkling of the kind of bizarre writing user:Dbachmann has to routinely put up with. I am amazed that user:Bakasuprman, with a straight face, can cite it in his evidence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ramdrake

User Dbachmann has violated several core behavior policies of Wikipedia

This is taken almost verbatim from the Dbachmann RfC (3), and I think it factually sums up the problematic behaviors which I have observed Dbachmann having, while on the other hand claiming that he was doing this in order to ensure the respect of Wikipedia's core policies, claim which I'm still having problems explaining properly. I can add more if more is needed.

WP:NPA

13:56 (Talk:Afrocentrism)

15:33(User_talk:Dbachmann)(comparing the edits of another editor to the actions of Willy on Wheels)

WP:CIVIL

13:53 (Talk:Afrocentrism)

19:02 (Talk:Afrocentrism)

WP:AGF

12:44 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians) (see edit summary: "page full of trolling")

WP:3RR (or just edit warring)

1-12:36 (Afrocentrism)

2-13:01 (Afrocentrism)

3-13:43 (Afrocentrism)

4-14:00 (Afrocentrism)

(another, stopped at 3 RV because the article was protected)

1-19:15 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians)

2-12:44 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians)

3-13:42 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians)

Other problematic behavior:

• Insists his position is right, but does not back it up with sources
  • From this diff (User_talk:Dbachmann) he says: "I reverted blatant trolling... Really blatant POV which obviously violates NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted." then goes on to justify his own reversion of the work of another editor he disagrees with (Talk:Afrocentrism) that it is "flawed (from) beginning to end", without any other explanation, in essence simply declaring his side of the dispute as "right" and the other as "wrong".

• Condescending attitude
  • From this diff (User_talk:Dbachmann) suggesting that a long-time user (Deeceevoice) leave Wikipedia.

• Blatant disregard for Wikipedia rules, in this case specifically WP:3RR
  • From this diff (User_talk:Dbachmann), says that edit-warring is necessary.

• Seemingly holding others accountable to a higher standard than he is, when after trying to justify edit warring, he has this to say about other people who edit-war:
  • From this diff (User_talk:Dbachmann) "What we need to do is build up enough pressure until somebody can be bothered to enforce policy." (ie. ban/block users who he is reverting) "I would love to do that, but I am afraid my constant anti-trolling efforts have given me a reputation of "incivility" (the standard cry of frustrated pov-pushers) that would make it difficult to appear on the scene as the badass admin acting as the redeeming scourge." (He subsequently asked another admin to do it for him here.)

• As evidenced below in his own statement, Dbachmann seems either unwilling or unable to recognize that his behavior in the content disputes discussed above has been problematic in any way, despite the production of numerous links to instances of problematic behavior on his part, such as in this testimony. I believe Dbachmann needs to be told in no uncertain terms that his behavoir isn't just indicative of merely having the "wrong kind of personality", but that his conduct in content dispute is downright disruptive to Wikipedia, where collaborative effort rather than bullying are necessary to advance the project.

--Ramdrake 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Beyond being right or wrong, the manner in which Dbachmann pushed his edits was disruptive

A lot of attention has already been devoted to whether some of Dbachmann's edits were right or wrong. What I propose here is that, beyond whether they are right or wrong, the manner in which they were made is extremely disruptive to Wikipedia. On the Afrocentrism page, Dbachmann started with a mass revert of several edits that had been introduced. When these were restored, and he was politely invited to discuss his points on the talk page, his response was mainly to revert again, along with some very unhelpful answers such as your edits are flawed from beginning to end. When asked to provide references to substantiate his judgment, he answered with this: wait, you mean it is "I" who has to produce evidence that Deeceevoice's changes are "not" flawed? (sic!) Notwithstanding the appropriateness or inappropriateness of his edits, I submit that the manner in which he tried to push them through (through mass revert, and refusing to substantiate his positions with references, later degenerating into gross incivility and personal attacks) is disruptive and shows little regard for his fellow editors. As a final thought, reading through the edit history of Afrocentrism and Race of Ancient Egyptians and their associated talk page, it is obvious that Dbachmann started the hostilities (or started them anew after the article being calm for a little bit), so a defense claiming that Dbachmann was only responding to hostility isn't credible — he was politely invited to discuss his reverts and his primary reaction was either to edit war or to lanuch into very condescending, unhelpful remarks.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:futurebird

Lack of civility

Dbachmann comes across as as rude to some users regardless of the quality of their contributions, or how polite they are to him. This seems to happen without provocation.

• • "Intelligently argued neofascist pov-pushing is just the same to me as dumbly argued Afrocentrist pov-pushing (see below)," This was in reference to my request for civility on his talk page.2007-11-14 16:32:55
  • "If you should wish to resume encyclopedic editing, I'll still be here." (directed at me, becuse of the RfC) 2007-11-27 19:50:20
  • "Intelligent debate is not possible at present."2007-11-16 18:47:16
  • "If this isn't "flawed editing", I am afraid you must live in some parallel universe editing some parallel encyclopedia project, and this confusion is just due to dimensional flux or something. Really. If I am going to invest time in this "debate" try to show a little bit of inclination to display cognitive activity."2007-11-14 13:53:58
  • He criticised deeceevoice using a year old Arbcom ruling. Deeceevoice never made it that personal. 14:06, November 14, 2007

POV pushing

When he dislikes something he makes it well known by using pejorative language. There are less inflammatory ways to open the same debate and make the same criticisms.

• • 2007-11-05 21:37:54 "WP:FRINGE: the article needs to state up front that this is about a racialist ideology, not an academic hypothesis." This is only half true. I think the current state of the article attests to that. There is a great deal of sourced information in the section "Contemporary" that supports this.
  • 11:36, November 6, 2007 Here he calls the critique of Eurocentrism "conspiracy theory," in fact, it is very popular critique of history. Although the extent and nature of Eurocentrism are a subject of academic debate, the large number of journal articles on the subject show that the existence of Eurocentrism is not a fringe theory.
  • November 6, 2007 If you don't want to write from "the 18th century Age of Reason" world view, leave the wikipedia, directed at me.
  • I tried to explain but it continues: "futurebird, "Afrocentric work" isn't pseudoscholarship. It's non-scholarship." "Projection of this notion into historical times is either pseudo-history (if claiming to be academic), or just ethnocentric fantasy." November 6, 2007 But there are plenty of journal articles written from an Afrocentric perspective, so it is clearly academic and scholarship.
  • All of this is before Deeceevoice said anything, This is directed at me, Ramdrake, Jeeny and other users on the talk page.
  • Criticism is important, even essential, but in any case, there is no need for the extreme, uncompromising, and strident position.
  • He uses block reverts.

Uncooprative behavior

He seems to reject attempts at compromise, apology and mediation:

• • 2007-11-15 15:31:08 here he refuses a scheme aimed at resolving edit-warring on the Afrocentrism page.
  • 2007-11-14 14:14:13 here he is being warned his comments have been taken off the page for being uncivil.
  • He is asked to apologize,2007-11-27 17:10:02 but responds in a way that JJJamal felt was dismissive.(see: 2007-11-28 17:05:21)
  • He is asked to participate in WP:CEM, but says it would be better handled on his user page.2007-11-30 16:30:07
  • He does not acknowledge the harm his insults cause others. (see below)
  • He does not acknowledge the harm his opinionated reverting, and talk-page bullying cause the project of making a quality encyclopedia. Especially when he is in a position of power relative to others. (see below)
  • I don't know if he intends to change.

--futurebird 12:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses

Response to User:Fowler&fowler

If my presentation seems to have minimized user:deeceevoice's disruptiveness, perhaps it is because of this fact:

• Deeceevoice was banned for her actions. The ban was initially for a year and but after I and others spoke out about the total lack of evidence for that ban and after two days it was reversed. If there was anything at all even mildly uncivil about the tone of her comments surly it has been addressed by that overly long and unjustified ban? In contrast to this, nothing happened to Dbachmann, although he has made comments that are in my opinion more harmful, more malicious, and more disruptive than anything Deeceevoice said. futurebird (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Britannica

• Britannica explains only one facet of Afrocentrism. The article in Britannica is about 1/3 of the size of the article here at the wiki. It's only 6 paragraphs long. It gives a quick cursory and dated treatment to the topic. All of the information in that article is mentioned in the article on the wikipedia, but Britannica does not discuss much but the nature of Afrocentrism in the 1980s, things have changed in the past 20-some years! They also leave out much of the history and describe the movement as static rather than changing. I think they have done this in the interest of brevity. So, I think we can do Britannica one better and make an article that gives readers a more current and detailed article that shows the entire picture. futurebird (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• I meant to say 80s and 90s. (Sorry.) In any case it is still dated and only mentions multiculturalism once. There is no mention at all of Africana studies, though they do mention "Afrocology" I think that's a dated name for Africana studies, though I think they have spelled it wrong it's "Africology". My point is not that Britannica is awful, but rather that we can do better and write a more up to date, detailed and accurate (free) encyclopedia article on this topic. futurebird (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann's edits were not always improvments

I generally support all of Deeceevoice's examples cited below. It is my understanding the arbcom will not settle "content disputes", but, in some cases we are dealing with the blanket removal of sourced material. As Ramdrake has said: regardless of the incorrectness or correctness of his edits, the manner in which he made them was unacceptable. His choice of what to revert had more to do with who made the changes than what the changes really were. This is not assuming good faith. futurebird (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dbachmann

Since no case against me is stated, I see no call to defend myself. Futurebird is esentially letting the world know she doesn't like how I "come across". Duly noted.

Now, for the benefit of people wishing to review this regardless:

• here is my block log. I am not aware of any controversy there. Since I am open to recall, I asked Pigman, disturbed by his criticism, would he like to recall me, which he opted not to. I consider futurebird a competent editor in good standing, and if she can find another five editors meeting my criteria of "good standing", she is free to request me to lay down my adminship.
• here is my exchange with futurebird, where, I argue, I show almost excessive civility and patience, certainly more than can be expected of any editor under WP:NOT#SOCIALNET.
• WP:CIVIL and filibustering: "Civility" doesn't mean falling over yourself with terms of endearment. It means addressing challenges with some decorum even if you happen to think the other party is misbehaving. And it is ostensibly incivil to waste the time of dozens of other editors with unsubstantial bickering over trifles. Or if not incivil, it certainly violates WP:ENC, which is the only reason I am even here.
• regarding Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) and his merry team of nationalist trolls jumping into the fray at the RfC, I hope it is sufficient to point to this statement to establish beyond doubt my own position regarding ethnic or nationalist pov-pushing, and allegations of "ethnic contempt", and by extension the position of those who wish to see my influence removed. I do hope the arbcom will consider putting an end to this sort of harassment. My talkpage is still semi-protected, and I have been being intermittently harrassed for fully two years (sometimes creatively, sometimes less so). I accept that my patrolling of nationalist topics will expose me to hostility, and I have no problem with that. But I expect the community to stand up for me when the nationalist and ethnic supremacist editors, frustrated by not getting their desired article revisions to stick, gang up against me.
• since we are all already wasting time here, I would like to suggest we try to make it worthwhile and actually achieve something of benefit. Thus, I suggest this case be renamed to Afrocentrism, and the arbcom look into the entire history of the sad mess that is Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians. If the arbcom can do some good here, it is recognizing the interminal trolling and pov-pushing that has been going on there since 2005, and which my involvement was designed to address. This article is a disgrace for Wikipedia, and it will not make progress unless the arbcom imposes special restrictions on users that try to derail an editing process strictly following Wikipedia policy of "report neutrally on academic discourse, period".

dab (𒁳) 09:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Folantin

General thoughts about this case

Frankly, I'm not sure why this case was taken up by ArbCom. I've already stated my opinion elsewhere that the RfC struck me as little more than a "show trial" of one of our best editors. I also suspect it was an attempt to gain the edge in a content dispute. As for this ArbCom, I second Dbachmann's suggestion that "Futurebird is esentially letting the world know she doesn't like how I 'come across'". Dbachmann is not a "touchy-feely kind of guy". What can we do? Having the "wrong" sort of personality in the opinion of Futurebird, Ramdrake or JJJamal is not subject to any sanction I'm aware of.

Alleged admin abuse

Irrelevant. No solid evidence of this has been brought forward.

Behaviour of other users

If this ArbCom has any purpose at all, it should be to investigate the activities of long-term problem users such as Deeceevoice and Bakasuprman who took the opportunity to use the RfC as an extended exercise in character assassination. I had little previous awareness of these editors but, having read up on their past history, I have no idea why they've remained unbanned for so long.

Dbachmann is an exemplary editor

Dbachmann has always tried to enforce core policies like NPOV in some of Wikipedia's trouble spots, ensuring these areas don't become "no go areas" for those with no agenda to push. This takes guts. He's already documented some of the abuse he's received for his pains. I remember helping defend his talk page against a massive attack by multiple socks of banned user Ararat_arev (a name which I presume is well-known to ArbCom). A collection of examples where he was attacked by an anti-Semitic troll [1]. Dbachmann is one of the few outsiders with the courage and the knowledge to plunge into disputes often dominated by extreme nationalism, ethnic chauvinism or other forms of partisan politics and try to bring some neutrality and accuracy into them. This is a vital task for Wikipedia because many experts who might otherwise be tempted to contribute to those areas are driven away by such feuding and bias. Dbachmann's willingness to engage with tough issues does not make him popular with some editors. I second his call that he be shown more support by the community. We need to encourage more editors like this. I believe Dbachmann simply took his usual approach with Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians, which seem to have more to do with the contemporary politics of the USA than either Africa or Egypt.

Evidence presented by Picaroon

Edit-warring

There has been a great deal of edit-warring on race-related articles in the past few months. There have been so many reversions I'm not going to bother listing diffs. Just take a look at the protection logs:

• Afrocentrism, two protections in last four months for edit-warring
• Black people, two protections in last three months for edit-warring
• Race and intelligence, four protections in last four months for edit-warring
• Race and ancient Egyptians, two protections in last two months for edit-warring

And, you guessed it, it's the same people. Picaroon (t) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Per request for specificity on the talk page, the users who are most commonly involved in revert wars on these articles are Dbachmann, Deeceevoice, and Ramdrake, with Jeeny and Futurebird also contributing some, but not as many, reverts. Egyegy, Muntuwandi, Taharqa, and Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, and other also join from time to time. This list is by no means exhuastive. Picaroon (t) 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback by Dbachmann

From most to least recent:

• 10:56, October 26, 2007, rolls Jeeny back in a content dispute on Race of ancient Egyptians.
• 13:42, October 31, 2007, rolls Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka back in a content dispute on Race of ancient Egyptians.
• 08:06, August 31, 2007, rolls IAF back in what doesn't seem to be a content dispute, but is nevertherless not vandalism, on Rigveda.
• 15:20, August 29, 2007, rolls IAF back in what doesn't seem to be a content dispute, but is nevertherless not vandalism, on Rigveda.
• 11:23, August 10, 2007, rolls WIN back in a content dispute on Rigveda.
• 11:26, August 9, 2007, rolls WIN back in a content dispute on Rigveda.
• 11:24, August 8, 2007, rolls WIN back in a content dispute on Rigveda.
• 13:37, August 2, 2007, rolls IAF back in a content dispute on Rigveda
• At this point, I asked him to stop misusing rollback. His response indicates he doesn't understand what it is supposed to be used for.
• 21:26, July 31, 2007, rolls Bakasuprman back in a content dispute on Rigveda.
• 12:08, July 31, 2007, rolls WIN back in a content dispute on Rigveda.
• 13:11, April 4, 2007, rolls WIN back in a content dispute on Rigveda.

And these are only two articles. Picaroon (t) 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bakasuprman

I will provide evidence in a week or so.

Afrocentrism

Not connected with this in any way. Had no idea what was going on, nor who futurebird (talk · contribs) and deeceevoice (talk · contribs) were before the RFC.

Civility

WP:CIVIL is extremely subjective. One man's incivility is another man's respectful statement. The policy has been used by Akhilleus (talk · contribs) as a forum shopping tool 4, 5, 6. I am not commenting on dab's "civility", when his numerous personal attacks and ethnic slurs are plentiful enough.Bakaman 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Attacks by trolls

As my userpage should show, I have been attacked by trolls incessantly as well. Dbachmann is not the shining beacon of light on India pages. There are numerous editors working to make the pedia more factually based, especially those of us willing to get dirty on tough political pages such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, among others. I have been called numerous names by nationalist/religiously motivated trolls, see 1, 2, and 3. We can see that editors like myself without admin powers have a harder time striking a balance to be able to edit when under constant siege by drive by vandals and porn obsessed perverts.Bakaman 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann

Editing in ignorance

While editing the National Development Front, a page reporting on a Militant Islamist group in India (National_Development_Front#Criticism should have quite enough diffs to substantiate the matter as to its orientation), I had the misfortune of having this debate "mediated" by dab. Before dab arrived, the page had enough diffs to substantiate the "militant islamist" label [2]. After dab arrived and protected the page, he proceeded to dispute the label, claiming no sources and later stating that "A group that does not self-identify as militant Islamist shouldn't be so called lightly, certainly not on WP.". I instantly dug up a couple more sources [3] but these were dismissed by dab who stated A) That I was biased (as if he isnt?) and B) That The Hindu (the leading english language newspaper of south India) was somehow not neutral or authoritative. He then referred to me as a partisan again [4]. Then I called him out on the issue of The Hindu, which definitely meets WP:RS [5]. He has not edited the page since [6].Bakaman 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus

Doublespeak on BLP

Akhilleus himself has violated BLP on many occasions, in one case revert warring on Talk:Michael Witzel to restore comments attacking a respected Indian journalist [7]. He then revert warred with the admin FCYTravis (talk · contribs) [8], [9]. Akhilleus is a horrible judge of WP:BLP, seeing as how he violates it many times as well. Certainly what was missing, was that the links to anti-Hindu were from a news source which meets WP:RS and can be published in an article. Of course, this fact was overlooked in Akhilleus' crusade to demonize me. Akhilleus comes off as an admin with no purpose on wikipedia other than fighting me, as evidenced when he lied about evidence in order to attempt to get me banned.Bakaman 02:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of WP:CIVIL

Akhilleus has abused the name of WP:CIVIL as a forum shopping tool. a, b, c. Needless to say he has whitewashed dab's obvious racism, and really has nothing better to do with this issue than violate WP:POINT every couple of weeks. Basically every comment I make is brushed off as "incivility"[10] by him, whether it is or not. These kind of spurious accusations waste mine and other constructive editors' time, which would underscore why no uninvolved editors ever respond to his "statements" on various forums.

Response to RFC/Miscellaneous

Coming from a facilitator of admin abuse and a person that lied about evidence, anything I do "in breathtakingly bad faith" is probably mindnumbingly true.

Now gerontophilia is not a widely used word. Dbachmann is certainly educated, and knows how to pick\ his words carefully ("shithole", "chatterbot", "fascist"). I cannot see how dbachmann would not know the definition of gerontophilia, try as Akhilleus might to play the fool. Now the diff is not just about gerontophilia its about "Hindu gerontophilia", as if Hindus are worse than other gerontophilics, same thing with "trolls" and "Indian trolls". This kind of prejudice has been questioned by other admins.

As for anti-Hindu, WP:SPADE certainly should be applied here. Zora was basically condoning an armada of trolls, which referred to myself and other users/admins as fascists (incidentally the same language Dab uses when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TerryJ-Ho&diff=prev&oldid=93348674 describing Indian users as well). What Akhilleus doesnt understand is that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Remedies and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Rama.27s_Arrow_is_desysopped (arbcom has an email in which Ramas arrow made despicable anti-Muslim rants) show which people are engaging in wrongdoing and ethnic bias.Bakaman 02:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Doldrums

I have edited the 2002 Gujarat violence page for nearly a year and a half. Doldrums has made edits in conjunction with Terminador (talk · contribs) (a probable sock of User:Kuntan) July 30, July 31. Also Doldrums edits in the same vein as did banned users BhaiSaab (talk · contribs), MinaretDk (talk · contribs)[11] and and socks. His suggestion that I am reverting in tandem with Hkelkar has been rejected by arbcom, and also a look at the block ligs of the socks shows that Akhilleus did the blocks. Now Akhilleus' lied about Hkelkar before, so its entirely possible this block was instituted merely as a smear tactic ,esp. with no CU.

Doldrums has in fact been instrumental in stymieing efforts for NPOV. He has misrepresented sources [12][13][14], gave undue weight to a politically motivated "sting" [15] and removed sources and relevant information [16], [17].

Folantin

Interesting use of rhetoric. I was unaware providing diffs with context was "character assassination", though I'm certain dbachmann accusing me of being a "fascist" is well within reason. Arbcom is smart enough to understand India related pages are contentious, and those that make sense of the dirty politics of that region are subject to some roughening and toughening. What's more important is that all my blocks took place in my first two months on Wikipedia, when I edited alongside such stalwarts of the project like BhaiSaab (talk · contribs), TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs) and Hkelkar (talk · contribs). My block log is impressive mainly due to the fact that I was a victim of wheel warring on the part of Moreschi (talk · contribs) and Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs).Bakaman 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by deeceevoice

I'm in the middle of some rather sorrowful personal business (wake Friday, funeral Saturday) and will not respond at length to other matters until sometime next week. deeceevoice (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost done, but the rest will have to wait. deeceevoice (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to User: Fowler&fowler

Dbachmann's revert warring at Afrocentrism, which gave rise to this dispute, was not an improvement. The diffs of Bachmann's edits aren't difficult to provide. He was blanket revert warring, so there's pretty much just one, made repeatedly.[18][19]

1. The first, most obvious indication that DBachmann's revert was a mindless, block reversion of everything I had done -- just a blanket reversal -- appears immediately. What was the reason for the removal of the commas to offset the appositional phrase "or Afrocentrism"? It's an edit I challenged him to explain when he charged my edits were "(whatever; I don't recall the adjective) from beginning to end," that I was "trolling" and "POV pushing." So, let's start at the beginning. What's wrong with it?

The edit is wholly inappropriate/in error. The revert of this change was the first clear indication that Dbachmann wasn't engaged in good-faith editing, but simply "revert warring" -- a practice he defends -- against an editor whose edits he didn't even bother to investigate, but merely assumed were damaging to the project.

Bachmann's edit is not an improvement.

2. The use of the word "contend" is arguably superior to "argue." It is a subtle change to a more value-neutral and less contentious (no pun intended) term.

Bachmann's edit is not an improvement.

3. See my comments on the article talk page about the business about Afrocentrism being a PARADIGM.[20] The article is too narrow. My edits, while temporarily accepting the focus on Afrocentrism and history (virtually the entire article focuses on that narrow aspect), were preparatory to broadening the focus of the article to examine Afrocentricity as a paradigm, which the article still fails to do (at least the last time I bothered to glance at it) and break up the business about history into a separate section. If Afrocentrism is not a paradigm, then how do Bachmann and others explain the numerous search hits for "Afrocentric paradigm" and the utilization of this paradigm by various mainstream (read "white") agencies and institutions, private and governmental, and across professional disciplines?

The definition of Afrocentrism/Afrocentricity, as I suggested on the talk, page needs to be widened. Why has this not happened? I contend it is because it is impossible to widen the definition and acknowledge the acceptance of the Afrocentric paradigm by the mainstream and at the same time paint it, broadbrush, as a crackpot, fringe enterprise, a "movement" with a narrow and twisted agenda -- which is the agenda here of certain editors and the way the white, mainstream, schlock media have sought to portray the predominant (if not entire) thrust of Afrocentrism -- Wikipedia, as represented by editors/admins like Dbachmann, included. Such an approach is not only inherently POV, it is narrow, unencyclopedic and, ultimately, fails to inform the reader.[21]

Answer these questions. If you read in your city newspaper that a local government social service agency or nonprofit institution was instituting the use of an "Afrocentric paradigm" in order to more effectively deliver, say, social work, or family counseling, or education services to an African or African-American population and you consulted Afrocentrism to understand what was happening, would you understand what was going on? Would you consider the innovative policies and procedures positive developments designed to more effectively serve its client population? Or, would you think the government (or institution) had been hijacked by some nut-case, anti-white, possibly gun-toting "militant extremists" and immediately launch a protest or recall of elected officials, or refuse to make any further monetary contributions to what you considered before reading the article a perfectly respectable/competent undertaking? I rest my case.

Bachmann's deletion of the fact that Afrocentrism is a "paradigmatic shift" is not an improvement.

4. What's Bachmann's problem with saying who (Western mainstream scholars) has a problem with Afrocentrism? How can one complain about my insertion of the Wek photo and the general language of the caption (meant as a sort of superficial swipe at a caption to be refined later, anyway; see point 8 below) and claim that it is thinly veiled POV-pushing because it doesn't specify who would classify Wek as "Caucasoid" -- and then fail to identify what "authoritative" persons (people whose opinions matter) take issue with Afrocentrism? What's his reason for excising that text?

The edit is not an improvement.

5. What about the removal of the "fact" tags? What's his reason for that?

Clearly, not an improvement.

6. "It is impossible to understand the Afrocentric perspective without investigating Eurocentrism." While I don't necessarily have a problem with what it states, the statement itself borders on POV, is unencyclopeadic (more appropriate for a treatise than an encyclopaedia entry) -- and it is needless.

The reinsertion of this language clearly is not an improvement.

7. Bachmann changed "the study of history has changed, gradually incorporating Afrocentic ideas as a part of a broader push toward multiculturalism in academia" to "... practice of history has changed gradually incorporating Afrocentic ideas as a part of a wider move towards multiculturalism."

The language of the existing text focuses on the study, or practice, of history, and so we are in the realm of academia. My edit is entirely appropriate. However, it seems that the mere mention/inclusion of "Afrocentricity" and "academia" in the same sentence was thought to be incongruous/intolerable. Granted, the phenomenon is not limited solely to academia, but my intent was to go back and later add a citation documenting the Afrocentric paradigm as gaining acceptance in academia as a paradigm in practice in mainstream institutions of higher learning. Furthermore, the paragraph deals with Afrocentrism in the context of history. The phenomenon of multiculturalism speaks to Afrocentricity in the context in which, I have argued, it should have been addressed at the outset, as a broader paradigm -- something I was prepared to do before User: Moreschi, acting clearly unquestioningly on Bachmann's charges of trolling and POV pushing, banned me from editing the article. Moreschi would not, and I argue could not, justify his banning me from editing Afrocentrism precisely because his action was merely a blind, uncritical endorsement of Bachmann's false charges. As a consequence, the ban was not upheld.

On a more general note, as an editor, I would argue that my syntax, generally, is superior to that revert-warred by Bachmann.

Finally, what's with the deletion of the comma here: "... has changed, gradually incorporating"? There is no logic to it. As with the appositional phrase at the beginning of the article, this is further evidence that Bachmann's edit was simply a mindless/blind block revert.

Bachmann's edit is not an improvement.

8. My reinsertions of the Papuan photo and the Wek photo are explained in detail on my talk page here.[22] (Read the entire section, not just the highlighted portion for the complete thread.)

Bachmann's removal of the photos is not an improvement.

9. Bachmann's reinsertion of language representing a view purportedly held by "more conventional" academicians/scholars asserts, "as comprising a mix of North and sub-Saharan African elements that typified Egyptians ever since, and that the Egyptian people were generally coextensive with other Africans in the Nile valley."

My language sought to address the use of the misleading term "North." "North Africa" commonly is used to refer to Arab/Islamic northern Africa. "North Africa" conjures up images of Arabs and Semitic peoples, when the fact is that when the foundations for dynastic Egypt were laid, Arabs were not in evidence in Egypt. This is common and mainstream knowledge (which, incidentally, gives the lie to the contention that dynastic Egypt was a Semitic civilization). You will note that I included such information with no such conclusory statement. However, the inclusion of that information alone -- properly cited -- was apparently offensive enough to the thinly veiled POV of the earlier language that Bachmann deleted it wholesale. The fact is there also exists ample mainstream scholarship that is "more conventional" than that traditionally associated with some Afrocentrist historians that does NOT hold with a Semitic Egypt. In fact, such a notion is ahistorical and runs counter to what is known of Arabs and their advent in significant numbers on the African continent.

For the record, I made a similar change in language to an earlier passage that referred to "Nilotic" people of the region, because it conjured up a specific phenotype (black African, gracile), when clearly the editor meant "of the Nile region" -- even though the earlier language served a so-called "Afrocentrist" perspective. I'll hunt up the diff when I have more time.) The interest here is in clarity and accuracy in the language and avoiding verbiage which lends itself to misinterpretation, either by carelessness or calculation.

Bachmann's edit is not an improvement and removes clearly sourced information inserted to definitively and decisively close the door on the wrongheaded notion the previous version of the text opened.

When asked to defend his edits, Bachmann simply stonewalled and proceeded to insult the other editors. He repeatedly has defended such behavior, openly and repeatedly justifying revert warring on his own talk page and elsewhere around the site.

Dbachmann's conduct is harmful to the project and reinforces Wikipedia's deeply entrenched systemic bias.

First, ditto to User: Ramdrake's comments.

Bachmann's frequent failure to explain his edits at all, or with unhelpful edit notes; his refusal to justify them when repeatedly pressed for explanation, but responding instead with condescension and blatant, abusive contempt for other editors -- all do harm to the project. In fact, Bachmann repeatedly has stated he feels himself above the need for collaboration. He defends his use of revert warring, insults (rationalized as WP:SPADE) and unilateral editorial decisions in the service of The Single Truth as he perceives It and brands as trolls, POV pushers and other pejoratives the holders of alternative perspectives. In my case, he has leveled a number of insults, likening some of my contributions to the "typographical equivalent of assorted animal noises."[23]

Such intellectual arrogance and narrowness of vision, such intolerance for other perspectives, which almost always come from someplace other than a Western, Eurocentric one, militate against collaboration and NPOV and call into question the bona fides of a project self-characterized as a global undertaking. DBachmann sees himself as a warrior against "nationalism" and provincialism -- tribalism of sorts. Yet, by his actions at Afrocentrism and elsewhere, it would appear that he is very much a contributor to the very ignorance, intolerance and narrowmindedness he rails so loudly against.deeceevoice (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that, since my response to his comments about Bachmann's edits, Fowler&fowler has amended his earlier remarks to treat "paradigm shift." Quibbling over an "-atic" on "paradigm" does not address the central issue here. In fact, I used the term "paradigm shift" on the article talk page and in earlier versions of the article itself. If such language were acceptable to Bachmann, if he were interested in editing by consensus, that minor copy edit would have been a simple fix. But he was not, and did not. In fact, Bachmann's edits were not even his own. His "contribution" to the article was repeated letter-for-letter blanket revert warring to a version preferred by User: Wikidudeman -- complete with, as noted above, faulty punctuation.

Furthermore, Fowler&fowler's concluding remark is telling of precisely the kind of bias commonly encountered on this website in the treatment of this and similar topics: "The current version, while a little better, nonetheless, by the use of 'paradigmatic,' perpetuates the illusion that Afrocentrism might be an intellectual discipline rather than something less rigorous."(Note:[24]The remark was changed from the version quoted here shortly after Deecee, posted this. futurebird (talk) -- included with my permission. deeceevoice (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

The fact of the matter is, as with other, competing approaches to the practice of history, there is responsible, intelligent, scholarly, highly regarded -- even if sometimes hotly contested -- work done by the so-called "Afrocentrist" camp. Fowler&fowler's comment here is emblematic of precisely the kind of broad-brush smearing of Afrocentricity/Afrocentrism as a paradigm that would deny it validity in any context, let alone an academic context treating the study of human history. This is the same mind-set, one of an almost reflexive knee-jerk, hostility toward and contempt for non-Western, non-white philosophical concepts, and for work that is grounded firmly in rigorous inquiry and scholarly pursuit, lumping it together -- without depth, without nuance, without discrimination -- from the flimsy mythology of fringe elements who would twist/contort or manufacture findings in the service of a rigidly prescribed and proscribed agenda.

IMO, Fowler&fowler's mind-set is amply in evidence in DBachmann's revert warring and elsewhere. Note User:Moreschi's derisive, contemptuous, dismissive commentary here,[25] as he sits in judgment on the work of other editors contributing in good faith to Afrocentrism. Such attitudes pervade the project. The fact is the terms "Afrocentric"/"Afrocentrist" regularly are bandied about around the site in a misguided attempt to smear/insult/brand contributors -- as, ipso facto, a pejorative. But if Afrocentricity is, indeed, such a debased, degraded and discredited phenomenon, how is it that it is in application in professional, academic, NGO and government circles as a useful and proven paradigm?[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Open contempt, ridicule and hostility directed at Afrocentrism (and other similar/related matters) are commonly in evidence around Wikipedia. Such attitudes are evidence of an entrenched, Eurocentric mind-set (and, in some quarters, if not racism, certainly a clear pattern of anti-Black animus) that is all too often antagonistic to non-Western constructs/concepts and one that ignores/denies Afrocentricity as a legitimate paradigm, as a relevant and useful framework for treating matters indigenous to African peoples and matters directly engaging and impinging upon them. And in saying "African peoples," I mean all African peoples -- not just African-Americans as some (who seek to ghettoize Afrocentricity to only Africans in the U.S.) would have it -- including those on the continent of Mother Africa and throughout the diaspora. deeceevoice (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Bloodofox

In short, I believe that User:Dbachmann is systematically inserting his own personal point of view and original research on numerous Wikipedia articles relating to Germanic neopaganism and subjects ranging from Neo-Fascism to Neo-Nazism as well as numerous pages relating tot hem. When called on it, his response is edit warring, wholesale reversions and bullying, leading to a time consuming process of attempting to get him to balance and source his entries on the numerous Wikipedia articles I've dealt with him on. Dbachmann is knowingly violating numerous Wikipedia policies to back up his personal crusade.

Dbachmann arbitrarily applies the inflammatory terms "Fascist," "Neo-Fascist," "Völkisch" and "Neo-Nazi" to existing groups without sources. Alarmingly often, if he does have a source, he will apply it as fact and choose not to represent or mention the accused group's response to the accusations. I believe that since these accusations are potentially libelous and inflammatory, they require particular, surgical treatment and should not be thrown around irresponsibly since such implications can result in serious consequences, misapplied or not.

Attempting to frame with quotes and imply association with "See also" section in Tyr (journal) article

With this particular example, one may note that he's taken a short unelaborated quip from a small review that is basically an off the cuff insult - that the party in question would obviously have an issue with - then used it as a the descriptor of the subject. This was clearly an attempt to inject an article with opinion by framing quotes, which violates WP:NPOV. The response? A simple reversion on his part without explanation. Since then I've reasserted my position a few times and brought it on to the talk page, where it was eventually removed but it was like pulling teeth with him to get him to follow basic Wikipedia policy when his opinion is involved. This is not OK and would definitely not fly with a regular user.. but from an administrator?

As a side note, I do not have any "vested interest" in this publication despite what Dbachmann claims above and I have previously stated exactly that to him on the Tyr article talk page. One can only wonder why he claims this.

Refusal to source and smoke screening on the Germanic Neopaganism article

Later, after following a post by User:WeniWidiWiki noting that numerous additions to the article are inflammatory and unsourced on the part of Dbachmann, Dbachmann simply blanket reverted him. This is notable to the Tyr article because what was questioned was unsourced subject matter (specifically referring to "Radical Traditionalism," the philosophy behind Tyr as "Neo-Fascist" despite no evidence backing it up and an introduction in the second issue blatantly condemning Fascism) and claims that were shown to be false on the Tyr article as there was nothing to back them up.

My response was to go through the article and remove the information that was inflammatory and unsourced until Dbachmann could back it up. During this period, Dbachmann refused to source the controversial claims (some of which, such as "Radical Traditionalism" being referred to as "Neo-Fascist" still remain in the article) and the conversation that took place really speaks for itself here.

It is quite clear that Dbachmann accuses me of numerous things without basis to attempt to downplay that he is refusing to provide sources only to admit that there are no source for his claims at all. Not only this but Dbachmann goes so far as to calling my initial removal of this unsourced information "disruptive" despite my constant reminder of policy and finally threatens to block me while the unsourced information remains.

What this boils down to is this: Dbachmann makes unsourced accusations on the article, I remove them and say they require a source as being potentially libelous, Dab reverts me and keeps his unsourced information on the article, says I am not being "courteous," attempts to imply that I have "bias," that I am not using "common sense" and that if he were to source the inflammatory and disputed material he would have to apply a source to every word in the article, an excuse denied as found in WP:POINT.

Abuse of "See also" and referral brackets to inject unsourced opinion

Dab has, over the years, inserted unrelated See Also sections that are potentially inflammatory over the years. This not only serves to attempt to associate otherwise unrelated movements (as in the Case of the National Socialist Green Party that Dab attempted to add as a "see also" link on the Tyr page - completely unrelated) but also attempts to further cloud subject matter and push his agenda.

A case of me bringing this up to Dab can be seen on the Thor Steinar talk page. A case of one these links still existing can be seen here in the introduction to the Nazi symbolism article, where Dab has placed the company name in brackets with the term e.g., implying that the label is a "Nazi label". These were on many pages until I removed them and Dab has done this with numerous subjects he finds a perceived link with.

Intentional omission of counter-arguments and spreading of misinformation

Recently, as a further example of Dbachmann's approach, Dab created the Neo-völkisch movements article. This is particularly notable because a blurb of which became a "Did You Know?" fact referring to David Wulstan Myatt having being potentially involved in Satanism. When he added this information, he intentionally left out the "allegedly" aspect, as well as Myatt's denial and simply plainly stated that he was the "chief instigator." It was was eventually edited by another user to reflect this after it became a DYK article.

This remained until after the DYK was used as a DYK fact on the main page, spreading misinformation to anyone who saw it on there. He clearly left out Myatt's denial from the Order of Nine Angles page as well as the fact that this connection is largely based off of speculation without any hard evidence. While I have a very low opinion of Myatt, I have an even lower opinion about intentional spreading of misinformation.

Secondly, Dab also inserted Radical Traditionalism into this article without a source or any other reasoning outside of an assumed connection on his part despite everything else, as can be seen here:[42]

I simply don't have the time to go through an administrator's edits and pick out what he's called (or lumping together with via "See also" sections or bracketed next to) "fascists" or "Neo-Nazis" today by and large without a source. These edits are all over Wikipedia by Dab on all sorts of articles dealing with obscure subjects. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses

Response to User:Mathsci

I have responded to User:Mathsci's comments regarding myself here. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Akhilleus

I'll add to this section as I have time.

Bakasuprman is uncivil

He says so: [43]. Bakasuprman doesn't care about WP:CIVIL unless it suits him, and generally characterizes complaints about his incivility as "whining". He also believes that the policy doesn't apply to "heated" areas of Wikipedia like India-related articles; see his statement above and [44], where he says "Editors of India related articles are always incivil..."

Bakasuprman's statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_3

I can't believe that Bakasuprman intended this statement at the RfC to be taken seriously. It's an extended personal attack. A clear indication of its nature is that, in its initial version ([45]), Bakasuprman referred to "Herr Dbachmann." If you accuse someone of "pernicious racism", and then refer to their Germanic heritage...do I have to spell out the implied accusation? No, because Bakasuprman was kind enough to do so by saying "Even though only banned trolls and POV pushing maniacs wanted me banned, dbachmann continued these gratuitous epithets. Needless to say fascism is a little closer to his side of the pond." Please note which article the word "fascism" is linked to: it's Nazi.

I believe this statement violated the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar_2, to which Baksuprman was a party. After I posted to this effect on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, specifically noting the "Herr Bachmann" remark ([46]), Bakasuprman removed "Herr" from his statement ([47]) . Bakasuprman then left a comment at the arbitration enforcement board, claiming that he intended "Herr" as an "olive branch of understanding" and an act of "cultural understanding" which contrasted with Dbachmann's "ethnocentric rants". It's hard to know how to respond to such a disingenuous statement; it's insulting that Bakasuprman would think anyone's stupid enough to believe that he intended respect by addressing Dbachmann as "Herr". By the way, the link to "Nazi" still remains in Bakasuprman's statement as of the current revision.

It would take too much space to go over the rest of Bakasuprman's statement in detail to demonstrate its breathtaking bad faith, but perhaps one more example will suffice. This edit by Dbachmann uses the word "gerontophilia", which Bakasuprman sees as an accusation that Hindus are sexually attracted to senior citizens. If one reads the diff, with its full edit summary, it is obvious that Dbachmann is doing nothing of the sort--it refers to the repeated insertion of the unsourced claim that Varanasi is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. So what's going on here--did Bakasuprman fail to read the diff properly, or did he distort what Dbachmann said, and assume that no one would take the time to read his diffs and see that they don't say what he claims they say? Because that's what happened.

Bakasuprman routinely accuses others of racial/ethnic/religious bias

Bakasuprman's attacks on Dbachmann are bad enough on their own, but they're part of a broader pattern of accusing others of racism, ethnocentrism, religous bias, etc. This often takes the form of calling someone "anti-Hindu". [48] [49] [50]

These accusations are unfounded, are personal attacks, and damage the collaborative environment Wikipedia is supposed to have. Worse, this behavior isn't directed only at Wikipedia editors; Bakasuprman has inserted such claims into Wikipedia articles, in violation of the BLP policy. See e.g., Michael Witzel [51] [52] [53]; David Frawley, where Bakasuprman restores language calling Martha Nussbaum an "anti-Hindu academic", with "anti-Hindu" linking to Persecution of Hindus--[54] [55] (The language was originally added by a sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar.)

Bakasuprman's insistence on dividing editors into pro- and anti- Hindu camps, as well as his penchant for labelling subjects of BLPs as "anti-Hindu", is a clear violation of the principle that Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mathsci

Dbachmann seems to be an exemplary editor

Dbachmann seems thorough and scholarly. He deftly turned the ill-conceived and slightly repugnant article on European people into an encyclopedic article on European ethnic groups: it no longer seems to attract racist trolls as the previous version did. I think this kind of editing, which takes a lot of intellectual effort, is what WP is all about.

Bloodofox seems to apply higher standards to Dbachmann than to himself

Bloodofox's sphere of interests seems to be more limited than Dbachmann's: a new age interest in Teutonic and Nordic mythology and religions connected with certain genres of Rock music. Sometimes he seems unscholarly: why did he object to Tolkien being influenced by Anglo-Saxon poetry when he was Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford, and why did he substitute Germanic paganism for Anglo-Saxon poetry in the template of that article [56] [57]? (Beowulf was not written in Germany or Scandinavia.) Bloodofox seems initially to have been coached in WP editing by Dbachmann [58] [59] [60] [61], calling upon his help [62] when he took issue with Germanic tribes being labelled Barbarians, despite this being normal usage in the historiography of Ancient Rome. Bloodofox's edits often remove any negative references to Germanic paganism, for example in the articles on Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs [63] [64] or Nazism and Religion [65] . That Germanic paganism might occasionally have been misused politically is a regrettable fact, but not one that should be covered up, even by very well-meaning WP editors like Bloodofox. It is unclear why Bloodofox is complaining about unsourced statements after his own unsourced additions [66] to the lead in Christianization, again concerning paganism. The mumbo-jumbo article on the barely existent Tyr journal, whether Bloodofox likes it or not, is one of the worst articles on the WP. Bloodofox's comments seem quite out of proportion: all that seems to have happened is that Dbachmann has inadvertently touched Bloodofox's Achilles heel by calling the Tyr journal völkisch [67], with all its far-right connotations.

Race of Ancient Egyptians needs urgent attention from trained egyptologists

There is little more to be said. I personally know quite a few egyptologists, but I'm sure they wouldn't touch the article as it stands.

Rokus01 has a history of escalating content disputes with Dbachmann

Since his appearance in January, Rokus01 seems to have had a dismissive attitude to Dbachmann's approach to edits on linguistics. [68] [69] He needlessly escalated a content dispute with Dbachmann to WP:AN/I, despite being told of his error by administrators [70]. He has contradicted correct advice on verifiable sources for WP articles given by Dbachmann on his own talk page. [71] Dbachmann replied civilly when Rokus01 called him a "mainstream guru" on his talk page. [72] Incidentally - and it is unclear whether this is deliberate or not - Rokus01 at times seems unable to write in plain English, even in lead sections, sometimes with hilarious results. [73] Other editors, including Dbachmann, have been less amused. [74] Recently he has once again escalated a content dispute with Dbachmann [75] [76] [77] [78] to a second report on WP:AN/I. [79]

Evidence presented by User:Warlordjohncarter

Equitable application of behavior guidelines

Much of the discussion here seems to be about whether Dbachmann should be held to a higher standard of behavior than others. Perhaps, to a degree, such belief is warranted. However, there is also the question of degree. If one is regularly belittled, insulted, attacked, and otherwise scrutinized regarding behavior much more than others, who may have prompted such behavior and may have themselves behaved just as poorly if not worse, there does strike me as being a fundamental inequality. And my review of other cases does indicate that the ArbCom does often take into account the behavior of the other parties involved, particularly if it prompts or otherwise exacerbated the conduct of the individual being scrutinized. I think everyone would agree Dbachmann has not behaved as the functional equivalent of Mother Teresa, but it does seem extremely unreasonable to me that an admin should be expected to behave in such superhuman ways simply because he is an admin. I think this is particularly relevant given the disproportionate degree of criticism, abuse, and attacks this one person has so regularly received. I have to question whether this seemingly exclusive or disproportionate focus on his behavior and his behavior alone is even remotely reasonable. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Rokus01

First, agreed it is a hell of a job to keep rubbish out and make Wikipedia a truely neutral encyclopedia offering balance between multiple scholarly points of view. However, what make people think you can achieve this goal by giving full confidence to anybody with enough spare time and bad humour to act like a suspicious policeman?

In the case of User:Dbachmann, the cure is definitely worse than the problem. I am not convinced Dbachmann has the qualities to offer balance and a neutral point of view. He rather spends loads of time and effort to combat multiple views, so how "neutral" does anyone by his common senses think could be the undue attention to the only view D. thinks is appropiate and worth our attention?

I can give you a lot of examples of Dbachmann resorting to his own unsourced edits to contradict sourced references and scholarly view. Once I explained his vice extensively here: Talk:Runic_alphabet#Violation_of_the_rule_to_let_the_sources_speak, albeit without result. He does not even deter from active disinformation to discredit a subject, as noted here [80] also by someone else. Maybe he does a great job in fighting nationalism somewhere, but he doesn't deter to compensate this by supporting the nationalism of his allies, for instance here Talk:Scythians#Straw_Poll_1 inserting false claims of a "Greater Iran" of his own interpretation along borders that never existed, even including Eastern Europe to Mongolia and China. Or things so silly as allowing Pakistan to be pushed out of the Indian Subcontinent.[81], thus inciting this nationalist dispute even more. Conclusion: his fight against nationalism is a sham.

Also his fight against WP:Fringe is a sham: to quote myself: his '"ignorance to distinguish drunk speculation and a range of very distinct scholarly opinions, may be mistaken for bad faith"' [82]. Another weapon in the wrong hands, abused to promote another so-called "mainstream" view especially popular to Dbachmann himself.

Really, it is not evidence lacking here to prove Dbachmann is abusing his adminship for playing dirty and turning against decent people that come up with information he dislikes. My observation that Dbachmann is allowed to be ever more careless and obvious in his abuse of Wikipedia policy to his own ends worries me a lot more. Thus, with so many admins already so much more equal, I can see this practice turning Wikipedia slowly into an Animal Farm.

Evidence presented by Doldrums (talk · contribs)

Bakasuprman's edits to 2002 Gujarat violence

this user persistently (Oct 21,Oct 6,Sept 15,July 29,July 26) removes sourced and neutral material and reinstates unsourced or misrepresented material originally introduced([83], [84]) by banned users User:Hkelkar and User:Shiva's Trident; despite having been repeatedly advised (including in a third opinion) of the problems with the edits (see 1, 2, 3). the most recent such edit[85] was in conjunction with Hkelkar socks Makthusian (talk · contribs)[86] and Behenuir (talk · contribs)[87]. Doldrums (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Bakasuprman

Bakasuprman questions some of my edits to 2002 Gujarat violence. the edits in question, along with explanation provided in edit summary or on the talk page speak for themselves.

• the July 30 edit is explained on the talk page, as indicated in the edit summary.
• [88] likewise.
• [89] is an extensive edit, i'd be happy to respond to any specific concerns about it.
• [90] was explained here and the 3O finally endorsed a similar wording.
• [91]undue weight? a widely reported (no less than 4 independent sources in that paragraph) event gets a paragraph.
• [92] as the edit summary indicates, this event happened months after what is regarded as the post-Godhra riots took place.
• [93]. as before, explained on the talk page as indicated in the edit summary. eventually replaced with a much better summary (even if i say so myself)

Doldrums (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The socks Behenuir and Makthusian were reported to the AE and were confirmed by a CU. Doldrums (talk)

Evidence presented by Sir Nicholas

This discussion from Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement would be relevant here – [94]. Bakaman has been impatient at times but some of dab's comments have been in bad taste, and are duly reflective of his biases.

Most of the evidence presented against Bakasuprman is post-Hkelkar 2 arbitration case; and since then his editing has decreased substantially – [95] — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of admin rollback in the past. Updating list currently. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.