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.

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

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."
 * 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 ..."

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&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Last updated: Fowler&amp;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&amp;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&amp;fowler «Talk»  09:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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&amp;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&amp;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 "news source" is a shabbily written op-ed/review 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 even 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 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&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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.)

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

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)

Dbachmann: 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

Dbachmann: 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.

Dbachmann: 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)

Moreschi: Presented faulty evidence to ban Deeceevoice
We know that this evidence did not hold up to scrutiny because the ban was quickly overturned by the community.

How it happened:
 * 1) 14:09, 14 November 2007 - Dbachmann asks Moreschi to come to the Afrocentrism page and play (in his own words) "bad cop" "Moreschi, since you seem willing to take a few troll-infested topics by the horns so to speak, how about try your hand at Afrocentrism too. This article is a mess several classes below India at its worst, and attempts to "debate" have proven fruitless for about two years now. Dbachmann 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC) "
 * 2) 20:34, 15 November 2007 - Moreschi, acting as an admin, tells Deeceevoice she is banned from the Afrocentrism talk page because she did not agree to a "1 revert rule" compromise proposed by Wikidudemann. Dbachmann also rejected Wikidudemann's compromise. (see: 2007-11-15 15:31:08) "If you reject the efforts of good-faith editors to compromise and reduce edit-warring, I have little choice, and seeing as virtually all your edits involve pushing the same POV, I have little sympathy either. ... -Moreschi"
 * 21:44, 15 November 2007 - Moreschi then says "Today I banned this user from Afrocentrism and its talk page for tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing" at WP:ANI (Now archived here.) The evidence Moreschi presents for the ban is the following set of diffs:, , , , , , . These diffs do not support a ban of one year, or any ban at all, in any way.
 * 23:47, 15 November 2007 - Deeceevoice is blocked from editing wikipedia for 1 year based on the "evidence" presented by Moreschi at WP:ANI.
 * 02:42, 16 November 2007 - I take a closer look at the diffs listed to ban deeceevoice and I did not understand how they supported the charge. For example: (This link here, which is given as evidence as to why deeceevioce should be blocked, seems to just be her responding to my question about a citation tag she added to one of my sentences in the article. I found her response helpful. I don't agree with all of it, and will respond after looking at some sources. But, it's not POV "editing."), (this isn't a "POV edit" either it's an explanation for a lack of trust. I hope that the context I provided makes this clear.), (this is not a POV edit. If you read it in context it's something I agreed with. It's called "systemic bias" there's a whole project devoted to fighting it.), (This is not a "POV edit" either.)
 * 22:20, 16 November 2007 - Moreschi comes to Afrocentrism and tags a section POV, that really just need to be tweaked. I work to address these concerns. But, Moreschi is hostile without provocation as if I'm a troll. "Some people seem to be confused about my role here - I'm not going even to try to add new content - for one thing I'm not competent to do so in this area, and even if I were, I haven't got the relevant reference material to hand - I'm simply here to take pot-shots from the side... it fits in with the general POV tone of the article, that Afrocentrism is simply a nice cuddly warm multicultural movement (and, hey, dude, everyone likes multiculturalism, right?), rather than Something Else. - Moreschi" (22:20, November 16, 2007, edit summary: "my word, you don't expect me to write anything, do you?")
 * 11:13, 17 November 2007 - Based on the concerns raised by myself and others at WP:ANI the ban for Deeceevoice is lifted.

futurebird (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * According to the Encyclopedia Africana, which devotes about five pages to the subject, and covers not only the history, but also comtempory developments, including the complex interactions between Afrocentricity, multiculturalism, and postmodernism, the short definition is: "Afrocentricity is an intellectual perspective deriving its name from the centrality of African people and phenomena in the interpretation of data." futurebird (talk) 19:27, 11 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)

Response to User:Warlordjohncarter
I don't think that this is about holding admins to a higher standard. This is about holding Dbachamnn to the same standard as other users. Admins should not be able to get away with behavior that gets other users, blocked. The rules should apply to all users in the same way. futurebird (talk) 16:00, 11 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: dab (𒁳) 09:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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 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".

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. 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.

Use of rollback
See this new section for an analysis of Dbachmann's use of rollback showing his edits were justified or explained in many, many instances. --Folantin (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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 and  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 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. Baka man  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. Baka man  03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing in ignorance
While editing the National Development Front, a page reporting on a Militant Islamist group in India (National_Development_Front 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. 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 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. Then I called him out on the issue of The Hindu, which definitely meets WP:RS. He has not edited the page since . Baka man  03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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. He then revert warred with the admin,. 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. Baka man  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" 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 Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan and Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2 (arbcom has an email in which Ramas arrow made despicable anti-Muslim rants) show which people are engaging in wrongdoing and ethnic bias. Baka man  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 (a probable sock of User:Kuntan) July 30, July 31. Also Doldrums edits in the same vein as did banned users, 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, gave undue weight to a politically motivated "sting" and removed sources and relevant information ,.

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, and. My block log is impressive mainly due to the fact that I was a victim of wheel warring on the part of and . Baka  man  02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi
The evidence provided by Moreschi is little more than a bunch of diffs thrown together. Somehow this worked on Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer. Moreschi blocked me once, luckily this was undone by a more competent admin.

On 2002 Gujarat violence, I have over 105 edits. Certainly the "Economist" was not the only source describing the conflict, and placing its view as truth violates WP:UNDUE. As for socks, I have reverted kuntan many a time. Also large swaths of content on that page was provided by me.

Lots of harping on "incivility". This coming from a user that referred to me as a "bastard" over ANI. Oh, the irony. What's more ironic, is that he's defending a user that's made more vicious personal attacks than any (save banned trolls and SPA's).

Its a big waste of time to analyze every diff littered through the evidence section, though moreschi's reliance on Michael Witzel/David Frawley is laughable. What he calls edit-warring is merely edits undertaken under BLP, which either allow for sourced criticism or allow for a defense of a person's dignity.

More to come later, or maybe not. I'd rather spend my time with DYK, writing pages people actually read.

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)

Dbachmann has abused his administrative powers, acted uncivilly and abusively toward other editors, and has engaged in POV pushing.
(evidence to be presented)

User: Moreschi has abused his administrative powers, acted uncivilly and abusively toward other editors, and has engaged in POV pushing.
(evidence to be presented)

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.

1. The first, most obvious indication that DBachmann's revert was a mindless rollback 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 "flawed 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/wheel 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.  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 without justification. Moreschi would not, and 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 rollback.

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. (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, dolichocephalic, often bucktoothed and with prognathism and enlarged encisors and a receding chin, like many Somalis and Dinka, like, in fact, King Tut and Akhenaten), when clearly the editor meant "of the Nile region" -- even though the earlier language served a so-called "Afrocentrist" perspective. 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."

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: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, 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? 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)

Response to Moreschi
(to be presented)

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 - |and 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:

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)

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:. 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, where he says "Editors of India related articles are always incivil..."

Bakasuprman's statement at 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, 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 Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar_2, to which Baksuprman was a party. After I posted to this effect on Arbitration enforcement, specifically noting the "Herr Bachmann" remark, Bakasuprman removed "Herr" from his statement. 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". 

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; in project or article talk space, Bakasuprman has labeled some people who are subjects of Wikipedia articles as "anti-Hindu"--e.g. Romila Thapar  and Michael Witzel  (this diff accuses both Witzel and User:Hornplease of being anti-Hindu).

Bakasuprman is, of course, free to hold whatever opinion he wishes. But unless you have strong sourcing, it is a violation of the BLP policy to call someone "anti-Hindu" on Wikipedia, even in project or talk space. Bakasuprman himself has acknowledged that BLP applies to talk pages--. To be fair, Bakasuprman attempted to justify his statement that Michael Witzel (and, for that matter, User:Hornplease) are "anti-Hindu", but his justification was a tendentious interpretation that relied on dubious sources.

Bakasuprman hasn't limited these opinions to project/talk space. At Michael Witzel, Bakasuprman edit warred to insert derogatory text saying that the article's subject was "anti-Hindu":. In his section above Bakasuprman claims that the text was based on a "news source", but the source was an op-ed column. (He acknowledges this in a talk page post). The text he wanted to include, however, states Witzel's supposed bias as an objective fact--not as the opinion of a columnist. Extensive discussion at Talk:Michael Witzel established that the sourcing was inadequate and the text that Bakasuprman preferred was a violation of NPOV and BLP. Here's FCYTravis saying so:. What little outside opinion we were able to attract through postings to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard and the Reliable Sources noticeboard agreed that Bakasuprman's preferred version was a violation of the BLP policy, because it stated the allegation that Witzel was anti-Hindu as if it were a fact.

On another article, David Frawley, Bakasuprman edit warred to include language calling Martha Nussbaum an "anti-Hindu academic", with "anti-Hindu" linking to Persecution of Hindus-- (The language was originally added by User:Kkm5848  and then restored by a sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar, after which Bakasuprman took over.)

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) (revised 06:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

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 ? (Beowulf was not written in Germany or Scandinavia.) Bloodofox seems initially to have been coached in WP editing by Dbachmann , calling upon his help  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 or Nazism and Religion. 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  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, 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.  He needlessly escalated a content dispute with Dbachmann to WP:AN/I, despite being told of his error by administrators. He has contradicted correct advice on verifiable sources for WP articles given by Dbachmann on his own talk page. Dbachmann replied civilly when Rokus01 called him a "mainstream guru" on his talk page.  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. Other editors, including Dbachmann, have been less amused. Recently he has once again escalated a content dispute with Dbachmann    to a second report on WP:AN/I.  In addition Rokus01 has wrongly claimed here and in two other places on the WP that Dbachmann protected the WP page on Indo-European languages when in fact the page was protected by Angr. He continues below to claim that Angr protected the page as a result of an intervention of Dbachmann, despite there being no diffs to support his statement. His continuing orchestration of a campaign against Dbachmann now seems to have become disruptive: « If you see any evidence of his violations against WP:NPOV (especially where he tries to smother multiple views) or WP:OR (making unsourced claimes), outright violations of WP:CIVIL or anything else of the kind, I urge you to help making Wikipedia a better place and denounce this behaviour asap at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence.»

Rokus01 has suggested there is "blatant corruption" because Dbachmann nominated Angr as administrator. It is hard to follow Rokus01's reasoning here.

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 truly 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 (commented also here: ), albeit without result. He does not even deter from active disinformation to discredit a subject, as noted here 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 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., 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"'. 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.

I couldn't resist adding some evidence to shed more light on Dab's psychology:. Here he gives a complete new interpretation to WP:NPOV. Given the special history of this article, Dab seems to subscribe to the ridiculous representation of a topic he does not agree with, for being "unsympathetic", though he objects to a more factual representation for being "sympathetic". Essentially, this kind of forced reasoning does not give confidence in Dab's ability and willingness to change.

More arguments for a quick solution to this enduring problem are still accumulating. Today, a disruptive succession of POV-pushing edits, ignoring all TALK-discussions, on (of course) the Indo-European Languages article (his pet) contains:
 * 1) Violation of WP:UNDUE:, largely ignoring the discussion on Talk:Indo-European_languages and instead appealing to an unwarranted claim of "vandalism".
 * 2) Unaccounted loss of information

Abuse of admin rights. Dbachmann thinks it is worth the full weight of his admin network to push his personal point of view to protect Indo-European languages:. The pretext is "edit war", still the only "edit war" I can see is his fanatism to revert without giving details. See history:. How much of an "edit war" is evident with this history? He did not even bother to TALK before I reverted his unaccounted edits. Instead of supplying a justification to his previous edits, he rather had the page protected. Of course after having his personal edits restored first.

Correction: It was not exactly Dbachmann that effectuated the protection. Reading the submitted incident well, it would be clear I indeed had his involvement in mind, since I never estimated his intelligence so low as to be so obvious. Quoting my clarification at the incident log: "I clearly stated: "he rather had the page protected"

I suggest User:Angr comes up to give some explanation soon to avoid being seriously involved in a cabalcase. I don't think this helps him to appear very independent as an administrator in his relation with Dbachmann. Obviously, the normal procedures to decide on a full protection were by-passed. I quote from the protection policy: "Full protection is to stop edit warring between multiple users or severe vandalism". Obviously this protection was directed against my edits that were opposed by Dbachmann, even though they were discussed thoroughly over a long time and I did not engage in editwarring to have some improvements enforced. My edits were three in a month and all discussed, while the reversals and changes by Dbachmann were many not or barely explained nor a result of the current discussion. As such, I consider the edits of Dbachmann here disruptive and the protection a sham that lacks all features of independent adminship. Since policy does not supply a valid justification to protect, and since the portection favours the disruptive edits of Dbachmann, I think it is hard to convince Dbachmann is not involved in this protection.

I will give you an excerpt of my request to unprotect:

''The full protect on Indo-European languages is a clear case of admin abuse to me. The protection was not requested according to the procedure to protect a page. There was no serious edit warring involved and the protection only serves the content dispute of the administrator. Please unprotect, or reverse to the version that corresponds to what has been discussed in TALK first. Rokus01 (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not unprotected -- matter is at arbcom seek arbitrators assistance Gnangarra 03:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the "abuse" charge is bogus anyway: I did not protect the page. In fact, I complained about protection. I am of course used to people crying "admin abuse" as soon as I do anything at all they don't like, but this is going a little far. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the reasons not to unprotect, it won't increase credibility or confidence to keep protection enforced, not to the institute nor to the people involved: obviously this protection was directed to my edits, even though they were discussed thoroughly over a long time and I did not engage in editwarring to have some improvements enforced. Three edits in a month and all discussed, no way anyone would be so innocent to swallow this! This action is a sham and lacks all features of independent adminship. I suggest User:Angr comes up to give some explanation soon to avoid being seriously involved in a cabalcase. Yes, this is going way too far. Rokus01 (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, "independent adminship" of User:Angr is even more unlikely considering this.

I invite all to compare Dbackmann's claim "In fact, I complained about protection.", to his admonition at TALK of the protected page: : "This may be a valid content dispute, but it needs to be addressed at the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses article. We should only come back and edit the summary here once a stable consensus has emerged there." This rather evidence to Dbachmann complaining about the "necessity" he sees in protecting the page, not to any opposition to the act of protection. Actually his point is: the Indo-European languages article should be protected until the argument is solved at the WP:FORK he reserved for the issue addressed by me in the protected page.

At Koenraad Elst Dbachmann engages in reverting corrections on two sourced references that were erroneously used (or abused) to support (now undocumented) WP:OR claims of an alleged stance against immigration and adherence to VB foreign policy ideas. Since the sources are in the Dutch language and my opinion on this was explicitly asked, this reverting is in violation of WP:AGF. POV-pushing his unsourced "it is crystal clear that Elst is a neo-nazi or neo-fascist by any other name" to defame Koenraad Elst on his own terms? I have the impression that here he tries to show his sheer contempt towards just any WP policy. Maybe he just want to be kicked out as soon as possible and thinks this is impossible. At least, his self confidence is getting pretty alarming. Anyway, his reverts and restore of inproperly cited sources, wrongly incriminate Koenraad Elst and violate WP:BLP policy as well.

The charge of violating WP:CIVIL is not my main concern, still I think it is usefull to mention my recent complaint in the incident log:. Here I challenge his unwarranted insinuation to be a neo-fascist that I had already vehemently rejected on his talkpage:. Obviously by this statement he tried to create a false pretext for his fight against the so-called "Afrocentrist pov-pushers".

Dbachmann frequently accuses others of trolling or bad apple, though much of his efforts look like sheer vandalism against the cultural heritage of fellow wikipedians. This pattern becomes clear when reading his countless, usually offtopic violations of WP:NPA.

Only a few recent violations of WP:NPA:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Disruptive reverts in edit warring, some also against WP:BLP and WP:AGF:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Already discrediting opponents beforehand that might list a future recall request according to CAT:AOTR as "bad apples":
 * 

Response to User:Mathsci
His comments really puzzle me:
 * 1) "Since his appearance in January, Rokus01 seems to have had a dismissive attitude to Dbachmann's approach to edits on linguistics. ." Here he seems to refer to my opposition to his unwarranted edits, haughty insults and qualifications. I oppose his focus on authority and acceptance that by definition is not covered by the requirement of multiple views addressed by WP:NPOV. Thus, this remark does not give any details or depth and only serves slander.
 * 2) "He needlessly escalated a content dispute with Dbachmann to WP:AN/I, despite being told of his error by administrators ." Following the link that would "remind" me to my alleged "error", I arrive at a comment of someone called Stevertigo on cricket. The slander can't be more baseless.
 * 3) "He has contradicted correct advice on verifiable sources for WP articles given by Dbachmann on his own talk page. " Wrong, no "correct advise" was involved, instead I opposed the answer of Dbachman to the questions raised by admin User:Natalie Erin of his uncommented removal of sourced information. Again, a distorted representation of facts I take as slander.
 * 4) "Rokus01 called him a "mainstream guru" on his talk page. " Yes, I did. Actually, I feel free to denounce his efforts to oppose multiple points of view of WP:NPOV by his overly diligent insistence on general acceptance. I subscribe to WP:WEIGHT, though I oppose to causing this policy to neglect WP:NPOV.
 * 5) "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. " Apart from "hilarious" being a far from neutral qualification in his struggle to protect Dbachmann, he is here referring to a content dispute. Personal WP:OR opinions on scholarly sources by Dbachmann have already been dealt with. Since Mathsci did not participate in this discussion whatsoever, I can only classify this argument as slander.
 * 6) "Other editors, including Dbachmann, have been less amused. " Here "other editors, including Dbachmann", show their utter ignorance in defiling a sourced scholarly reference. Dbachmann makes it even worse to accuse professor Alinei of WP:SYN in his own publication! Does this have to amuse me instead? This single incident should be sufficient to disqualify all editors that were engaged in this foolish slander. (His culminating hostility in general displayed against Alenei comes pretty close to WP:BLP).
 * 7) "Recently he has once again escalated a content dispute with Dbachmann" I am afraid I will have to escalate the behaviour of Dbachmann as long he is intend on violating WP policy to resolve his content disputes. As far as I am concerned this only emphasize the seriousness of my disagreement to the edits and adminship of Dbachmann.
 * 8) "In addition Rokus01 has wrongly claimed here and in two other places on the WP that Dbachmann protected the WP page on Indo-European languages when in fact the page was protected by Angr.". Wrong, while my formulation above to supply evidence indeed could have given this impression by giving a summary, the originally submitted incident explicitly didn't make such a claim. I clearly stated: "he rather had the page protected". Read my full analysis above.

Mathsci added a personal admonition on my personal talk page questioning my "soapboxing" and inciting other editors to denounce the actions of Dbachmann: His commitment to protect Dbachmann, again, fail to be neutral:
 * 1) The "soapboxing" refers to the complaint of User:Librorum Prohibitorum I received against Dbachmann's unwarranted accusation of Koenraad Elst, dab asserting "it is crystal clear that Elst is a neo-nazi or neo-fascist by any other name.". I was invited to verify the correct use of Dutch sources that allegedly involved this Flemish public figure in such practices. In fact, it turned out the accusation of Koenraad Elst to be affiliated to VB still lack a sourced reference and the Dutch sources were written by Koenraad himself to denounce any such involvement. This kind of unwarranted accusations from the part of Dbachmann happen to often. In fact, Dbachmann already engaged in edits and reversals here without verifying such valuable information. Please don't blame me for being wary of this kind of tainted edits and comments. It cost me a lot of valuable time to clean this mess:, so how would anybody expect I am grateful to Dbachmann's attested and symptomatic prejudices? Yes, we are talking about an administrator sense of responsibility here.
 * 2) "Your obsessive attempts to nail User:Dbachmann by fair means or foul (as indicated on the case of Koenraad Elst) is disruptive and dishonest." It is far from disruptive and dishonest to clear the name of a public figure of unverified and unsourced accusations. My principles are nonnegotiable, to call this "obsessive" only discredit the obsessive intentions of Mathsci to defend the undefendable even more.
 * 3) "You should have left a courtesy message on Dbachmann's page before making your bogus report on WP:AN/I." Ok, right about the courtesy message, I'll take notice (see . The report being bogus is his own tainted interpretation: " I clearly stated: "he rather had the page protected" Please refrain from your mercenary attitude to jump into the fire for defending the undefendable, and come up with loose accusations that only show how involved you are in soapboxing that won't help your friend at all. Rokus01 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"
 * 4) About the charge of "soapboxing", in reality this concerns a valuable advise on the legal means to combat WP policy violations, to somebody that comes to me with explicit complaints of such violations by Dbachmann. So why Mathsci did not complain about the "soapboxing" of Dbachmann to have my edits reverted and me sanctioned?

Thus, I denounce the severe lack of neutrality, objectivity and accuracy I detect in the evidence presented by Mathsci as violating WP:NPA.

Response to User:Folantin
Folantin calls Dbachmann an "exemplary editor", without giving examples of edits so excellent as to increase the value of Wikipedia as a source of neutral, encyclopedic information. The words and opinion of Folantin are the only evidence here. Already the whole list of documented reverts that undid improvements on WP policy varying from WP:BLP to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV would suggest otherwise. Concerning the active insertion of new information I would say that during the time I've been around and on the subjects I shared with Dbachmann, I never noticed any such exemplary contribution of what I would consider sufficiently worthwhile, interesting or precise. In some cases he enforced Wikipedia policy to others, still this does not make him a excellent editor: An excellent editor should apply Wikipedia policy especially to his own edits, and here I can see a systematic deficiency. In short, I have to point at the sheer impossibility to make any exemplary edit without minding WP policy too much, or even blatantly violating such policy. An exemplary edit is incompatible to, for instance, the violation of WP:NPOV policy to respect multiple views, or to indulging in some outspoken claims on subjects that are still in scholarly debate, sometimes not even shunning WP:OR. With the edits and actions of Dbachmann, articles like Neanderthal Genome Project and Neanderthal interaction with Cro-Magnons came close to becoming vehicles of single claims that don't reflect the current debate and multiple views, to the extend that this articles deviated from the original purpose of giving information on a single subject, and became WP:FORKs of the main article Neanderthal instead, predominantly promoting one certain point of view. Usually he enhances those single claims on the TALK pages in a way that comes close to extremism, complete with insults and even admin threats to his opponents. This is not "exemplary". This is devastating to the quality of Wikipedia as a source of neutral, unbiased and encyclopedic information. Articles perverted to this extend only leave two options open to a conscientious editor: a complete overhaul, or - in case this would result to endless POV driven editwars - deletion.

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 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 was in conjunction with Hkelkar socks and. 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. Doldrums (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the July 30 edit is explained on the talk page, as indicated in the edit summary.
 * likewise.
 * is an extensive edit, i'd be happy to respond to any specific concerns about it.
 * was explained here and the 3O finally endorsed a similar wording.
 * undue weight? a widely reported (no less than 4 independent sources in that paragraph) event gets a paragraph.
 * as the edit summary indicates, this event happened months after what is regarded as the post-Godhra riots took place.
 * . 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)

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 Arbitration enforcement would be relevant here –. 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 – —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/6gkl was blocked for editing Dharmic religion. From the history of the article, it is apparent that account worked on expanding the article, which was then redirected by Dbachmann – "rv cfork". The redirect was to – Indian religions, which apparently does not seem to have the same content as was put in the article. This is an example of an improper interpretation of Wikipedia's blocking policy and a unilateral attempt to influence Wikipedia's content by misusing the blocking tool and then protecting a page while in dispute.


 * Relevant discussion at the end of June 2007 on WP:ANI, where concerns were expressed regarding the use of rollback.

Evidence presented by Andranikpasha
I can mark these editions by Dbachmann in Armenia-related articles as problematic:
 * 1) Here  is an unsource calling of Armenian historian, prof. Rafael Ishkhanyan an "Armenian nationalist author".
 * 2) Here  Dbachmann changed his own wordings and wrote: "Armenian nativist Rafael Ishkhanyan". "Armenian nativist" is not only unsourced but aslo is a fully OR by him (there isnt such a term in historiography or anywhere else, for example, Google doesnt give even one answer  for "Armenian nativist" a possible anti-Armenian biased term)
 * 3) Here  without any explanations at the "Page summary"  Dbachmann marked a large number of Armenian and Armenian-American historian's works and researches as "Armenian nationalist literature": this is a unsourced adding, and among the authors of the marked books are respected scolars (Professors, Dr's, only A. Varpetian is a writer-philosophist) with different views and the only common thing for them is that they were cited the Kavoukjian's books.
 * 4) Here  Dbachmann changed the words of a direct quotation to an OR explanation: "...Hovnanian in a 2006 interview expressed support for Kavoukjian's identification of Armenia as the "ancestral home of the Celtic tribes"", despite the source never asks that Kavoukjan marked "Armenia as the ancestral home of the Celtic tribes", but that Kavoukjian's work dedicated to the Caucasian(not only Armenian)-Celtic relations and the possible pre-Homeland of Celts at Caucasus (not directly Armenia, Little Caucasus is a border for Armenian highland).
 * 5) He never answered to my questions about some of these and other problems at the article's talk page until I wrote to his personal talk page . In his answer he called prof. Ishkhanyan's idea's "so much nationalist bullshit": Ishkhanyan's "nationalist bullshit" ideas are used for the state-published historical and encyclopedical books for Armenian kids, he was one of the authors of Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, a WWII veteran, a professor of Yerevan State University, an academian and a member of Soviet Armenian parliament. He is a prominent and well-known person for Armenia, and Dbachmann's unsourced words are not shown respect to his memory.
 * 6) Or another article: "Armenian nationalism" created by Dbachmann: there are 3 external links for this article, all three are Turkish or Azeri extremely-biased anti-Armenian "sources" ,; here  Dbachmann added an Azeri personal site from Geocities as an external link.
 * 7) In the same article he added an OR "The need of the Armenian diaspora to derive its identity from anti-Turkish sentiment has been denounced as detrimental to the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey, to the disadvantage of the Armenian state." When I ask him for a source he didnt represent any.
 * 8) Here  Dbachmann added: "...Armenian nationalism has notably been opposed to Turkish nationalism, especially over the refusal of the Turkish government to recognize the Armenian genocide." (no page summary, unsourced, no any facts on these claims). Its well-known that the refusal of Turkish government to recognize the Armenian genocide is a point of focuse of many respected democratic, human rights activist movements around the world, its a point of focuse of many prominent and not so well-known multi-national persons including Orhan Pamuk, Taner Akcam and Hrant Dink. Dbachmann is going to represent here that focusing as something special for the nationalists, thats not right: its something specific for many humanist, international movements (including non-nationalist Armenian people or the "Union against Genocide" of Turkish intellectuals).

These unsourced editions and OR addings by Dbachmann seems to be anti-Armenian biased and among with editwarrings he was engaged are making a sad picture of an admin's dubious activities that Wiki users even had no opportinities to protest. Andranikpasha (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued violation of WP:NPA by Dbachmann
I had no intention of commenting on this latest case surrounding Dbachmann. But then he – yet again – made a blanket personal attack, calling a handful of Indian editors Bakasuprman’s "merry team of nationalist trolls" for expressing their opinion at the Dbachmann RFC. He made this statement as part of his “Evidence” on this very RfA.

These "nationalist trolls" include editors with a wide range of editing patterns, views, and histories, including some editors in extremely good standing, with clean block logs. The only thing they/we all have in common is that we are regular contributors to India related articles. Based on that one common trait, we have all been branded “nationalist trolls” by Dbachmann. This is plain prejudice.

His previous comments about Hindus and Indians are relevant to this current case. It shows a long pattern of prejudice and name-calling, in clear violation of Wikepedia policy. It also explains his strong POV editing pattern, pointed out by several editors here. I will assume extremely good faith – that Dbachmann’s prejudice is a personal form of ‘systemic bias’, and that he is not aware of his insensitivity. Regardless, he should not be an administrator on Wikipedia, and it’s time that his campaign against ‘nationalists’ and ‘trolls’ should be exposed for what it is: code words for prejudice, not entirely unlike the term 'states’ rights'.

I request members of the Arbitration Committee to be aware that Dbachmann’s frequent accusations of “troll” and “nationalist” are not “evidence”, except in the sense of self-incriminating evidence, showing his continued and habitual violation of WP:NPA.

More evidence of abuse of admin privileges
Demonstrating that this latest RfA is part of a long-standing pattern:
 * Unprotecting an article and threatening to block another user in an edit dispute that he was involved in (this is from a deleted article, so only admins can view this diff. I request this article’s history be undeleted to provide more evidence).
 * Blocking an editor in a dispute he was involved in – demonstrating that his threats of blocking other editors in such disputes are not idle threats.
 * More examples of page protection while involved in content disputes:

Bakasuprman
Continued pattern of pro-Hindu POV-pushing, edit-warring, incivility, and personal attacks. Why we have not banned this editor yet, I don't know.

Addhoc evidently does not appreciate the full extent of the problems that "Hindutva"-related issues have caused on Wikipedia. I suggest heading to User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links and counting the India-related arbitration cases. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * = Economist not deemed a suitable source.
 * - page history
 * 
 * removes the same material yet again after someone had put it back in.
 * - flat reverting, no reason given.
 * - this was just plain hilarious: category gets deleted at CFD, Cydebot removes it from the articles it was in. Bakasuprman thinks its a good idea to start revert-warring with the bot, makes about 15 of these reverts. Fortunately the bot just reverts straight back! No prizes for guessing what the category was: Category:Hindu politicians.
 * Reverting in tandem with User:Hkelkar, this one is quite a leitmotif. We'll see it again later.
 * Count the personal attacks
 * Keep on counting
 * 
 * Flat reverting
 * 
 * 
 * - POV edit-warring.
 * epic edit-warring to Michael Witzel. Read the article, it's not hard to work out why. Same for David Frawley. Selected diffs...
 * Reverts for Hkelkar.
 * Good enough sources for a BLP? I don't really think so.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - my point exactly.
 * 
 * edit-warring continues right up until October, any old op-ed will surely do as a source, right?
 * - charming! Worth noting here that User:Hornplease is most definitely not banned, nor editing at the moment, nor had Bakasuprman's block log.
 * revert to Hkelkar
 * Flat reverting
 * history of Goa Inquisition, I'm not going to list all the reverts, people can see for themselves.
 * personal attacks on the Wikiquette alerts page...one rather does have to chuckle at the irony.
 * Ok...
 * Oh, no, the rules don't apply to me, I edit India-related articles...(admin only).
 * Why not prove the point while we're at it?...(admin only).
 * and again.
 * 
 * Don't we just love automatic reversion tools?
 * Evidence of misrepresenting sources.
 * 
 * - more reverts.
 * 
 * rv to Hkelkar.
 * 

Deeceevoice
Choice quotes:
 * From here: With regard to WDM's "proposal," I'm not agreein' to squat. I didn't start the sh*t, and I'm not going to curtail my editorial rights because of someone else who's just got the a** with me simply because I don't buy white folks' lies about who our people are and our history. The guy's got a problem with me -- but that's his problem, not mine (along with, obviously, some personal issues as well; people as hateful and nasty as he is generally lead very sad, empty lives). And I'll be gott-damned if I spend any more time talking about "compromise" with a guy who's part of the problem, who started with the b.s. edits in the first place (removing photos without any real justification), who has a history of edit warring on black subject matter, and who doesn't have the guts or the inclination... - directed as User:Wikidudeman and Dbachmann.
 * I just love it when people spell out their POV for us. Even if Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
 * Beautiful! Oh, the irony! From Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3: OMG. After reading the first diff provided here, I must say I'm astounded. Of course, such attitudes abound -- still -- but rarely do people who hold them have the arrogance to express them so openly as has DBachmann there. Amazingly patronizing. IMO, his comments reek of "white man's burden" superciliousness, disdain and contempt -- which further help place Bachmann's behavior and his numerous other comments throughout this website regarding articles treating non-Western (non-White) subject matter firmly and squarely in the context of -- and I'll say it outright this time, as I have always suspected -- racism. Just appalling. And pretty tragic. This user should be de-sysopped. Immediately. I just read Bakaman's reference to fascism. That's it exactly. Bachmann's antics, his philosophical and practical approach to the project are fascistic. It's a thought I've harbored for some time now, and the remark is right on the money. Yeah, Bachmann may honestly believe he is non-racist, but, then, racists very rarely admit to or possibly even recognize themselves the extent to which their thoughts, words and deeds are poisoned by unreasoned hatred and/or contempt for other cultures/ethnicities. Charitably, one might call him at the very least rabidly, offensively, aggressively Eurocentric. If a euphemism floats your boat, then grab that one -- but racism it is. And it should come as no surprise to anyone who's followed this guy (which I haven't, actually, until now). IMO, his racism and fascism have been clearly demonstrated by numerous contributors to this RfC. Furthermore, he is wholly and unabashedly unrepentant about his conduct -- another screaming reason he's got to be sanctioned. No one is above Wiki rules and procedures. (Added 11/28/07). deeceevoice (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From the talk page of the RFC: I don't read this as a "character reference." It reads like more excuse-making, more "give the man a free pass": "...bending over backwards to appease others who not only cannot write and are often ignorant, but who also unrelentingly verbalize the cock-eyed perspectives of their particular upbringing, education, or milieu in the name of universal truth...." What relevance has this to the matter at hand? None. deeceevoice (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC) - directed at Folantin, Fowler and Dbachmann.
 * Oh my word...more soapboxing, incivility, personal attacks, all in one go. Must read!

My "opinion" of Dbachmann
This is not so much of an "evidence" but my opinion, if it counts for anything. I think that Dbachmann is one of the most important editors on wikipedia. I have had the opportunity of interacting with him over a period of at least two years. He is doing a commendable job with articles that constantly attract editors biased on nationalist, religious and ethnic grounds, and it is his insistence on sticking to reliable sources and NPOV that has prevented these articles from plunging into abysmal depths of original research. Wikipedia articles related to Sanskrit literature, especially the Rigveda, are at their current level of quality almost entirely due to the efforts of Dbachmann.

Perhaps, the kind of opposition that he faces in his work sometimes irritates him, but instead of doing RFAr's on courageous editors who strive to maintain the credibility of wikipedia, we should be encouraging them. I know a lot of "polite" editors out there who would compromise on the content of articles rather than confront biased editors. I also know "polite" editors who invent and rewrite histories, but are unopposed because they are too nice. Thankfully, Dbachmann is not one of them, and is doing wikipedia immense good by his presence here. deeptrivia (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann is uncivil

 * "there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access"
 * "we might as well be dealing with an armada of chatterbots unleashed from an underground BJP headquarters"
 * "Come on, that's like striking a one-move-per-week deal with bleeding Willy on Wheels."
 * "I see your account hasn't suddenly been hijacked by someone willing to use common sense"
 * "you, sir, exhibit a quality of density that would do credit to a quasar"

Bakaman is being victimized
Is it very necessary to put a long list of links to make this look like "evidence"? Going through much of the links above, presented by quite a number of editors, all that is evident is that Bakaman has been impatient at times, failed to be diplomatic often enough, came on a bit too strongly in some instances... none of that is good enough reason to pick on an editor who has made exemplary contributions in developing Wikipedia articles, and worked fruitfully for numerous collaborations. I personally have always found him very reasonable, even when I myself was not particularly so (an example would be this discussion). It is agreed that he has opinions, but Nirvana (or a state of zero opinion) is not a behavioral policy yet (I hope). It is also agreed that he fails to give up at times, but that is often a mark of a fine Wikipedian. In the past many fine Wikipedians like Rama's Arrow and Zora left the project exactly because of this kind of finger pointing and silly bickering. What's the result? A significant reduction in improvement of certain areas. The evidence lies in the links above, just go through those with a pinch of salt. Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Meowy
=== Dbachmann is often uncivil and threatening towards editors he has content disputes with ===

I encountered Dbachmann while editing the Armenian nationalism article. This was an article created by Dbachmann and mostly written by him. I found serious flaws in the article's content - but Dbachmann repeatedly reverted my edits and the edits of others. He did not respond to most comments and questions placed on the article’s talk page. He made no effort to argue his position, and in fact seemed to take pride in not doing so: saying, for example, that it was "merely designed to tire me out and make me walk away in exasperation". He seemed to have an obsession with the concept of nationalism. He repeatedly stated things like "there is no pre-modern Armenian nationalism" and "ethnic nationalism is an entirely modern phenomenon", but without ever trying to justify that point of view.

In the article's talk page, almost all Dbachmann did was throw insults about, accusing other editors of making comments and suggestions that weren't even "half educated and half literate". He placed a comment on my talk page, titled "Warning", in which he accused me of trolling, of blanking content, and of editing "content that is absolutely undisputed". He then threatened to block me. In reality, every editor working on the article, except Dbachmann, was disputing much of the article's content.

I hope administrators are always aware that editors can be intimidated into silence by the possibility of entering into a content dispute with an administrator. To minimise this, administrators should always show more restraint, politeness, and circumspection than us ordinary editors – to do otherwise is an abuse of power. Meowy 21:46, 8 January 2008 (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.