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 presented by Fowler&fowler

It is my claim that:

1. The edits made by user:Dbachman (Dab) helped improve a POV-infested article (Afrocentrism)
2. The evidence presented by user:futurebird minimizes the disruptive behavior of user:deeceevoice, and
3. user:Bakasuprman used the opportunity of the recently concluded RfC to take pot-shots at Dab.

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

I read the article Afrocentrism for the first time today and looked at some of its editing history. The article has been edited by various editors, the leading among whom are: user:deeceevoice (683 edits, first edit 2/27/2005), user:futurebird (113 edits, first edit: 10/13/2007), user:Parkwells (84 edits, first edit 11/16/2007), and user:Paul Barlow (80 edits, first edit: 3/10/2003). The article was in a sorry state when Dab made his first substantial edits on 11/5/07. Although improved, the article remains in a poor state, in part because some of the changes advocated by Dab were not implemented. 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 which stresses the distinctive identity and contributions of African cultures."
• 21:16, 5 November 2007: Dab changes sentence to: "Afrocentrism is a controversial ideology which stresses the distinctive identity and contributions of African cultures to world history, often involving pseudohistorical claims regarding Ancient Egypt."
• For the next week there is a 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 which stresses the distinctive identity and contributions of African cultures to world 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 which stresses the distinctive identity and contributions of African cultures to world history." (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 revert's back to user:deeceevoice's version. (Edit summary: "Dab, please take it to the talk page rather than edit-warring. This wholesale revert is unjustified. As an admin, you should know better.")
• 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 emphasizing a distinctive identity and contributions of African cultures to world history."
• Today 04:34, 4 December 2007, the lead sentence reads: "Afrocentricity, or Afrocentrism, is a cultural movement emphasizing a distinctive identity and contributions of African cultures to world history."

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

Afrocentrism, also called Africentrism, (is a) cultural and political movement whose mainly African American adherents regard themselves and all other blacks as syncretic Africans and believe that their worldview should positively reflect traditional African values. ... 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 (in the manner of his description) that Afrocentrism is not entirely a rigorous discipline.

What does the Concise Britannica say? Its first few sentences are:

Cultural, political, and ideological movement. ... Afrocentrists argue that for centuries blacks and other nonwhites have been dominated, through slavery and colonization, by Europeans and that European culture is either irrelevant or hostile to efforts by non-Europeans to achieve self-determination. 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, this is 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," (italics mine) to the sentence, "Therefore, Afrocentricity is a paradigmatic shift from a European-centered history to an African-centered history," (with edit summary, "It's a paradigm.")
• Today, 13:15, 5 December 2007, that sentence reads, "Therefore, they view Afrocentrism as a paradigmatic shift from a European-centered history to an African-centered history."

There are a number of problems with the sentence:

1. The commonly used expression is paradigm shift, not "paradigmatic shift."
2. While "paradigmatic shift" is not unheard of, the reason why it is not used is that "paradigmatic" means (OED), "serving as a pattern; exemplary; typical," in addition, to meaning, "Of the nature of a paradigm." So, "paradigmatic shift" could also mean "exemplary shift," or "typical shift," which is not the intent here (but rather, "shift in paradigm").
3. Although "paradigm shift," is used more generally to mean (OED) "a major change in technology, outlook etc.," it also has a specialized meaning, which is, (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, by the use of "paradigmatic," 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" (which is Britannica's characterization of it).

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Last updated: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 5 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 saw fit to remove from the talk page discussion, deeming them to be a personal attack. 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 was 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. He is inherently prejudiced against actual Indians/Hindus editing pages on India and Hinduism, instead (sic) taking it upon himself to educate us barbaric Indian-trolls" (where the last phrase was linked to Kipling's poem "White Man's Burden"). 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 made 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. Chauvinism that is not only a far cry from Gandhi, but is often also lacking even the veneer of attendant politeness that might have been seen, say, in a Lincoln-Douglas Debate or a Huxley-Wilberforce Debate. 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. When I myself arrived on Wikipedia a little over a year ago, many India-related pages were rife with such wars and warriors, and I can still conjure up, with a shiver, the first time a number of these warriors (including user:Bakasuprman) arrived — out of the blue and all at once — on a page I was editing (Indian mathematics) and of which they had no expertise or history of editing and, without the courtesies of helpful edit-summaries, proceeded to ambush me (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)

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 pushed 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.--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
• In The Arbcom comments he calls my requests for civility requests for "political correctness," which is not something I ever said.
• After the RfC had opened he followed me to a new article I was working on: "can we turn this back into a disambiguation page please? ... If 10% of the energy wasted in bickering on Talk:Afrocentrism went into constructive work on topics of African studies, Wikipedia coverage of the field would be several classes better than it is. thanks" Implying that what editors are doing at the Afrocentrism article is "wasted energy" at a time when the article was improving rapidly. 17:08, November 21, 2007
• In fairness, when he followed me to my new article on Encyclopedia Africana he edits showed improvement, and were mostly on target.
• He criticised deeceevoice based on a Arbcom ruling over a year old. Deeceevoice never made it that personal. 14:06, November 14, 2007

POV pushing

• When he dislikes something he seems makes it well known by using excessively pejorative language that is insulting from, even his earliest edits. 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. (Though there are those who disagree, and we should show that too. Also Afrocentrism is not homogeneous.)
  • 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 strident seeming position. He cites one source that, based on what seems to be his original interpretation of that source, supported the idea, but mostly he seems to just give strident closed directions.

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 insulting comments cause to others. (see below)
  • He does not acknowledge the harm is 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

deeceevoice:Dbachmann's edits giving rise to this dispute were not an improvement

For reasons already stated, this response is limited. It treats only User: Fowler&fowler's critique of DBachmann's edits at Afrocentrism. I will address other matters at a later date.

The diffs of Bachmann's edit aren't difficult to provide. He was blanket revert warring, so there's pretty much just one, made repeatedly.[1][2]

1. The most obvious indication that DBachmann's revert was a mindless, block reversion of everything I had done -- just a blanket reversal? 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.[3] 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.

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.[4] (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 calculation or carelessness.

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.

Bachmann's frequent failure to explain his edits at all, or with unhelpful edit notes; his failure to justify them when 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."[5]

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."

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, without depth, without nuance, without discrimination, of work that is grounded firmly in rigorous inquiry and scholarly pursuit, from that purveyed by fringe elements who would twist/contort 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; it pervades the project. "Afrocentric" is reguarly 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? The open contempt, ridicule and hostility directed at Africentrism (and other similar/related matters) are commonly voiced around Wikipedia. Such attitudes are evidence of an entrenched, Eurocentric mind-set 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)

futurebird

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. Nothing happened to Dbachmann, even though he is an admin and should set an example for others, rather than drawing them in to battles over personal insults as he tried to do (unsuccessfully) with Deeceevoice, myself, and others. futurebird (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann's edits were not always improvments

First I want to say that Debachmann's edits are sometimes fine, but here is an example of how in one of the reverts cited by Ramdrake he removed sourced information:

Nov. 14, 12:36 (Afrocentrism)

There is general agreement, however, that Arabs are not

indigenous to Egypt, but migrated from the Near East, eventually conquering Egypt in 700

A.D.

Why was this sourced information removed?futurebird (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will add that: I also generally support all of Deeceevoice's examples of flaws in his editing cited below. But, I chose this example because it is my understanding the arbcom will not settle "content disputes", but, in this case we are simply dealing with the 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 [6]. 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)

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 [7]. 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 [8] 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 [9]. Then I called him out on the issue of The Hindu, which definitely meets WP:RS [10]. He has not edited the page since [11].Bakaman 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses

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)

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.