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

Question for Picaroon

I was going to post it here in my section, but it is not evidence, it is a question, where is the correct place to post this? futurebird (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You can post it right here as you have done. If Picaroon doesn't happen to see it soon, you can leave him a note on his talkpage with a link. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. futurebird (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

You wrote "it's the same people" can you please specify who was edit waring and over what and when? These articles are controversial and subject to repeated vandalism, and lengthy content disputes. I have worked on all of them (except for "Black people" where I think I've only commented on the talk page from time to time.) I understand the providing diffs is a lot of work, but I think we need to be more specific so that we can come to an agreement and move forward. If you are criticizing my edits I really want to know about it, so I can improve. (However looking in to the history of those articles may be beyond the scope of the arbcom. I'm a bit unsure about that. I'm open to it, but if there is a dispute about the way that I or anyone else edits these articles, don't we need to try other forms of dispute resolution first?) futurebird (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to criticize anyone in particular over the edit-warring; I intend to propose an article probation remedy on /Workshop, which will allow uninvolved admins to step in and calm things down. This is a general sort of remedy aimed at stopping disruption of these race-related articles, no matter who is doing it. I am not proposing any individual sanctions for edit-warring, as I do not think the case has reached that level, which is why I'm not going to single any one out. Picaroon (t) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is what your comment suggested. I still think if you want to say it is "the same people" you should say who. And cite an instance of edit waring. futurebird (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Picaroon is providing evidence against Dbachmann, since that is what the page is for. The problem is, Picaroon is using the plural, people - this is either a typo, or Picaroon is accusing people in addition to Dbachmann. Picaroon shouldn't play games with ArbCom; Picaroon should instead be clear: who else is being accused, and of violating what policies? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from a crude google search Dbachmann has never edited that article. Ramdrake and myself have so I assume this is about us? I'm very confused. futurebird (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If Picaroon is not providing evidence against Dbachman, the material should be removed from the page. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to suggest that bodies of "evidence" that only serve to sully those who have brought forward evidence concerning Dbachmann's behavior (those editors know who they are) be either removed or deleted. With all due respect to all editors involved, I would suggest that if you have direct qualms with one of the other editors of this ArbCom who isn't Dbachmann, you open up an ArbCom case for that, as this is pretty much turning into a mud slingfest.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. futurebird (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This case is not exclusively about Dbachmann - it was accepted to look at the behavior of all involved. Note how arbitrator Kirill Lokshin said "Accept to examine the behavior of all parties." I think the edit-warring on race-related articles in recent months and the inability to resolve disputes using talk pages has been a big contributor to the bad blood between Dbachmann and those endorsing criticism of him on the rfc. I think article probation or, even better, discretionary sanctions needs to be implemented on these articles. My evidence provides basis for those proposed remedies. Picaroon (t) 21:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What Picaroon said. The case was only opened on the basis that the behaviour under scrutiny would not be limited to that of Dbachmann. --Folantin (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Further agreed. Several people in the request for arbitration, including me, specifically requested that the behavior of other parties be included in the arbitration, and the first arbitrator who agreed to taking the case agreed to examine the behavior of all parties. None of the following arbitrators disagreed with that point. On that basis, I have to assume that the behavior of all parties is going to be examined. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Pica, I don't think it provides the evidence because you have not said who "the same people" are or how the problems at those articles are related to the problems at the articles where Dbachmann was involved. That's why I've asked you to be specific. When were the "edit wars" who was involved and if so what was the result? I resent being blamed for the sorry state of those articles, when I have worked hard to make them better despite the presence of numerous POV pushers.

I invite anyone to look at my edit history at these article and you will see that I have been polite, even when faced with extreme rudeness and racist comments, I have listened to other users and tried to compromise, and I have been willing to work with others at a number of plans to improve the article. I really resent the implication that this is not the case. So is that what you are trying to imply by saying that it is "the same people" involved in editing waring? futurebird (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that he was necessarily pointing fingers at anyone else specifically, including you. I think he was only trying to draw attention to the fact that there are a number of players involved, not just Dbachmann. Also, and here I'm not pointing to you either, it is known that there are occasionally "tag teams" of reverters on certain content. Like I said, not pointing fingers at you, or for that matter any else, individually. I think all he may have been trying to do was draw attention to the fact that such "partisan" (for lack of a better word) editing does seem to exist on those articles, probably from all sides. It might be enough to get some of the articles placed on article probation, which is what Picaroon actually seems to have requested. If they are placed on probation, only those editors who apparently engage in "disruptive edits" would ever be penalized. Knowing your own history, I can't imagine that many, if any, of your own edits qualify as such. I, however, may well wind up disappearing for a year or two, given my own, ahem, combative tendencies. :) John Carter (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that users at these pages have been blocked too quickly, and that the pages are protected too often and for too long. When the page is protected protracted and circular discussions break out on the talk page. Often the reason for page protection isn't even clear. I don't want admins to have more power to block users at these pages. I don't think it will help. It also seems like an odd idea when admin responsibility is an issue here. I think that admins should encourage users to focus on getting the unsightly NPOV tags off of these articles and clearing up those ugly "citation needed" links. There have been times when there was some racist troll (and I do mean racist, as in using the n-word) who was quickly banned, and I was happy to see that, but lately page protection and banning don't seem to have much relation to disruptions as far as I can tell. I mean, aren't users banned when it seems likely they will continue to vandalize pages if not banned? If a user is participating in talk page discussions and if other users support their changes why would they be banned?

No I don't want to make it easier for people to get banned. People are banned for vandalism when it happens. What we're really talking about here is banning people for perceived POV pushing without warning. And banning people for "tag team" editing? How do you even identify that? futurebird (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone can be banned for "tag team" editing, as it is hard to identify, although some suspected socks are used for that purpose. That's why, if the article is placed on probation and an individual has a clearly "disruptive" edit, that individual can be blocked for a while, to get them to hopefully cease such disruptive edits. It may not be the best solution, but in some cases it seems to be the only one that has a chance of working. Whether this is one such instance is another matter. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Question for Futurebird

Now I'm the one that's curious. Is Deeceevoice your alter ego/sockpuppet? Otherwise, why is he/she editing all over your statements in Evidence? That would go a long way toward explaining your overriding concern over a block on someone else. Ovadyah (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It quite clearly states at the top of the page "Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section". It certainly goes some way to confirming my suspicion that some kind of "tag team" is operating here. --Folantin (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! No and if anything I would be deeceevoices' sock puppet, I think she's been here a lot longer than I have. Ramdrake and I have asked Deeceevoice, why her statement is is the wrong place. I'm certain she'll move it soon. futurebird (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it has much more to do with the fact that Deeceevoice has some real life issues now, and possibly didn't realize she was moving her comments to Futurebird's section. Either that, or we have one woozie of a schizo case (honestly we don't - I left DCV a message on her talk page to let her know).--Ramdrake (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks everyone. Ovadyah (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being proactive and moving the Deeceevoice comments to the right place, Futurebird. Ovadyah (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Right place?

Bloodofox, has added a statement here, but I'm confused about if it belongs over there or in the evidence section. Is it in the right place? futurebird (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad dealt with it. Picaroon (t) 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He moved it to the talk page shouldn't it be on the evidence page? futurebird (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be considered evidence. If Bloodofox would prefer to put it on the evidence page, I will not object. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have since made this move. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1000 words?

How strict is the 1000 word limit? It seems like some statements have gone over this count. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mine had, but I've now pruned it down to 999. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't telling anyone that they should cut down their statement! Rather, I'm at ~950 words, and I have more to say...but I'm not sure if I should go over the limit. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone will be bothered by 1200 or even more. 1500 is probably the max though. I think the guideline is there to keep the evidence in focus and stop people rambling or ranting at enormous length. --Folantin (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to User:Mathsci

I hope this is the right place for this. The following is in response to this post.

User:Mathsci, it appears to me that the root of the comments that you've made originates from your lack of knowledge in this area. I would like to help you with this so that we may avoid future misunderstandings. Let's begin:

1. As quite a lot of people know, Beowulf is a story recorded in Anglo-Saxon language about Swedes, Geats and Danes in Scandinavia who were very closely connected to the Anglo-Saxons, all of which are Germanic Peoples. I never said it had anything to do with Germany and I challenge you to find a diff where I did. You can't, as I wouldn't, since it doesn't. I can only assume this comment on your part stems from ignorance on the subject matter. There is no dispute over this that I am aware of.
2. Anglo-Saxon poetry was one of many aspects of Germanic paganism that influenced the works of Tolkien and there's no objection over this, so I am not sure where your claim is from. Instead of citing all of his various sources, including the Icelandic Sagas, the Poetic Edda, the Prose Edda and various Anglo-Saxon poems (all products of Germanic paganism), I just summed it up as "Germanic paganism" as appropriate for the user box template. This is pretty straightforward and there is no dispute over this as far as I know and I think it helped the article. I also completely redid the related section regarding his influences on this subject and gave his specific sources, in case you were wondering.
3. Please provide a diff for the thing about the Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs and Nazism and Religion articles. For those unaware, this is an area with a lot of common misunderstandings and I have done numerous edits in these areas without any real problems that I can recall over the years. For example, Dab and I have both done extensive editing involving the Von Listian influence on the Third Reich. A diff would be good so I can clear whatever this is about up. I am particularly interested in what I've been "covering up" on this article. This again seems to sound like it comes down to a lack of understanding on the material.
4. The dispute over "Barbarian" being used involved numerous editors and went pretty smoothly as far as I remember. In the end, it was decided that we'd just use the term with a reference and otherwise refer specifically to the groups, since it's such a vague term that essentially just means "non-Roman" to Romans. If one says "Barbarians" attacked something, who are they talking about? Huns? Germanic Tribes? Slavs? Conan? Well, that's the same problem we ran into and if I recall correctly that is how it sparked. It's practical and straightforward. What's controversial about this? I am really confused. I think Dab helped on the Charlemagne article and I appreciated it. This was all a while back and the problem was solved by some simple rewording.
5. Please go through the Christianization article and check to see where it needs sources, you can probably find them in the links (which is the first place I'd look for them) as the article is essentially a summary pages of various other articles. I would be interested in what you are disputing and why, so please include that too so I can address it and work towards a better article as I think this is a pretty important article, I just have a lot on my plate right now.
6. Well, the Tyr journal article may not be the cat's meow but but whole thing is referenced and verifiable per standard.

Regarding the comment you made that reads as follows:

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.

Although I find the comment insulting and belittling I will shrug it off because I hope my edit history and the quality of my contributions speak for themselves. :)

I hold every single editor to the same standard as myself and I hope you do too. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I made my summary based on your editing history and I apologize if it felt belittling. I had no intention of criticizing the quality of your edits. As with most WP editors, topics edited reflect - at least partially and often unsystematically - the patchwork of an editor's interests. I think that's why on the whole the concept behind WP works; the widely differing backgrounds and motivations of editors enrich the project, but can also create problems. I can see now that I might have incorrectly inferred that your interest in certain genres of Rock music and Germanic paganism were related: I apologize if this was not the case.

I myself only started editing in my own professional expertise, mathematics, following the real life suggestion of another WP editor, a quite well-known mathematician and personal friend. I have recently colloborated with User:Hemlock Martinis on resummarising European history for Europe, the main challenges being the citation of verifiable sources (particularly for 20C history) and balance. I added Huns, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and even Normans (I am an Englishman living in France after all). One of my concerns was that Northern Europe, particularly Scandinavia, was a little left out, which ties in with the problems you state about "Barbarians" (an unfortunate consequence of the fact that the Romans got to write their own history books). I'm not sure I wish to make any further comments, except "happy editing". Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Matschi, I appreciate you taking the time to provide those diffs that I requested from you. I will now respond to the instances you mentioned that I was unable respond to before:

Regarding the diffs on Hitler's religious beliefs:

The page information that was there at the time was referring to Pre-Christian Roman religion instead of the broad term of paganism and so I made changes to the specifics. I am big on specifics whenever it's possible, as I've noted before. The only other changes there are in those diffs are links, grammar and formatting. I don't think there was a problem with any of that nor any controversy from what I remember. The article has developed considerably further since then, fortunately, and I am glad to see some people have dug out some more sourced quotes from Hitler regarding his contempt for Germanic paganism rather than the confused jumble one normally sees.

Regarding the diffs on "Nazism and religion":

As I recall, this section was far better explained in the article that existed at the time relating to Hitler's religious beliefs and, as I also recall at the time, outdated in comparison to that one as I think there was some shifting going on. I don't think anyone had any problem with the removal of it as the page had a lot of issues and this was one of them. Considering the subject matter relates to the Third Reich, there's tons of nutty misinformation around there and I think all editors who have dealt with these aspects of Third Reich history will tell you that a lot of people just let their imagination run wild. This inspired me to go take a look at what the article looks like now and I spotted some changes I had forgotten I made in the past further explaining the utilization of symbolism derived from Germanic paganism and ancient Roman religion, so I can't say I was trying to "cover anything up," I probably added more links, they were just specific rather than a jumbled pool of mud. Anyway, beware the Vril-powered Nazi UFOs from the Hollow Earth amassing in Neuschwabenland!

As for the introduction changes I made on the Christianization article, it's as I thought before. The article is basically a list of summaries of various events and I did a lot of restructuring, formatting and Wikitizing on that article around that time too. The article still needs a lot of work - specifically citations. However,it seems that my edits at that time were improvement as nobody has said anything about it and I think the links that I made go into more detail. I don't believe any controversy came of these edits, if I remember correctly. I will go back in and do some more serious editing on that article as I have been intending to for a long time but there's a lot of other stuff I am regularly working on.

Again, thanks for putting that extra effort into going back and looking those up as I always find it a real pain to go dig up diffs after the fact, I actually try to be a bit better about my edit summaries now for this reason and I can only hope others do the same, yargh! I hope this response answers the rest of the questions you posed. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My aim is only to give a better representation of Dbachmann's activities: I object to villification/demonization. BTW, I went through all your edits (thank Odin I worked out how to use the 500 button :-)) and enjoyed many of them. In particular I made two micro-contributions with Elderflower cordial and pagan altars at Housesteads to Mars Thingsus. That's in the area where I grew up: there were frequent hikes and youth hostelling trips near to the Roman Wall; and one of my siblings did a school project on Mithraic worship, so we got to witness the excavations at Vindolanda, more years ago than I care to remember ... Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How long will this matter remain open for comments?

My schedule now is backed up like crazy, and I just don't have time for this right now. I have clients trying to get film in the can before the holidays, so I'm slammed -- and my own holiday commitments are catching up with me. I need to know how much time I have. (I still haven't actually written a statement -- just a response to someone else's comments, and even that needs to be edited.) deeceevoice (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

These ArbComs usually take forever at the best of times. I know some users haven't even begun to add their evidence yet. You could ask one of the avaliable arbitrators not to start reviewing the evidence until early January if you want to make doubly sure. --Folantin (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Folantin. I probably won't get to this until after New Year's. deeceevoice (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've lodged a request with Kirill Lokshin. --Folantin (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Difference between admin rollback and simple revert

What is the difference between an admin rollback and a simple revert (made by a non-admin)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The admin rollback button just needs to be pressed once and all edits by the previous user are automatically undone. A non-admin revert means opening the history, finding the version you want to revert to, clicking on it, clicking "edit", typing in your edit summary, and then hitting "save". An admin rollback does all of that in one click and includes an automatically generated edit summary. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if a user has something like popups installed, it's easy to do automated reverts from a watchlist or history page--faster than admin rollback. On a technical level, I don't think admin rollback is very different from tools that ever user has access to through javascript, so the basic problem is not one of OMG ADMIN ABUSE but that an automated edit summary doesn't explain the reason for the edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I think you are a bit confused here. Admin rollback is WMF-server-based automatic reversion of edits, popups are embedded in your monobook, so they automatically make the manual changes through your computer. In no way can the popups be faster than admin rollback. And blind reversions through the watch-list using pop-ups aren't something that I recommend either. There have been users who have had their ability to use popups revoked, in the past.

Administrators are trusted with these automatic tools and are expected to use them sensitively and judiciously. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused. From the user's perspective, it takes fewer steps (and is therefore faster) to use popups to revert an edit through the watchlist than to go to Special:Contributions/Random_user and hit the "rollback" button next to whatever article you're trying to revert. You seem to be talking about the server side, and for all I know admin rollback is faster in that sense; but I'm talking about ease of use from the editor's perspective.

And I think we agree about something else, too; it's possible to misuse any automated editing tool, whether its available to all users or just admins. If an editor persistently misuses popups or twinkle or whatever to revert edits that aren't vandalism without leaving an edit summary (or an explanation on the talk page, or some other explanation of what they're doing), then that may be a problem. However, I think the "admin" part of this allegation is something of a red herring; either Dbachmann is misusing automated reverts, or he's not. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between automated tools like TW and admin rollback. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Case: You are on your watchlist. Someone vandalizes and you want to revert the edit. You can click the diff and press "[rollback]" or you can go to popups and press "revert". Essentially, they take the same amount of time, but my personal preference is rollback (not that it matters...). Nishkid64 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are given access to server-based tools (which are comparatively faster, IMO) and they use the resources of the servers, rather than the user's internet connection, one of the reasons why only administrators have access to those. It is also apparent from the evidence, that the rollback tool was used to make mass-reverts of other editors contributions, which is a gross misuse. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. There is never a justification for a revert (irrespective of method) when the intent of the insertion being reverted is honorable, that is, the insertion doesn't subvert/corrupt/disenfranchise previously existing text.
2. The functional difference aside, is there any practical difference between using rollback or popups or undo? Irrespective of whether one uses a hammer or nail gun, the purpose and effect of both is still to drive a nail. Similarly, the purpose and effect of a revert is always the same.

-- Fullstop (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Question for a Clerk

Is it possible to retrieve a dif/history of a deleted article for evidence? Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. Could you state your intentions here? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - in my evidence against Dbachmann at HKelkar 2, I included "Threatening an editor in an edit summary with blocking, merely for disagreeing with his own POV" followed by a dif link. That dif[1] points to a since deleted article. I'd like to add it to evidence here, if it's appropriate. But I can't see what it is. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 05:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• 12:55, 28 March 2007 (diff) . . Dbachmann (Talk | contribs | block) (Unprotected Nicholas Kazanas: we cannot protect every article trolled by WIN (talk · contribs), we have the option of blocking the user instead.)

I believe this is the edit-summary you are referring to. Admin using "protection/unprotection" tool in a dispute they are involved in. If no one has any objection, I could temporarily restore the article in user space for visibility to non-admins. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Admin also threatening, using the royal we, to block in dispute they are involved in. ~ priyanath talk 05:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Objection

I object to the way this is going. Due to the diffuse phrasing of the initial rfar submission (futurebird requested arbitration because she didn't like how I "came accross" to her and because I was being "rude" in referring to deeceevoice's parole), it turns out that this "case" is now being abused by each and every user that has some axe to grind with me, unearthing trifles and long-forgotten editing disputes that would never have been accepted as grounds for arbitration, carefully selected in a collaborative effort to make me look bad. This isn't acceptable. Expecially "Nearly Headless Nick" must have spent a lot of time collecting "abusive reverts" and "protections", all presented out of context: the "protections" are in fact semi-protections, all motivated by returning edit-warriors and sock-puppets. Semi-protection by definition does not provide leverage in content disputes with bona fide editors, it merely serves to prevent sock attacks. The motivation of "Sir Nicholas" is, of course, to be found in resentment going back to incidents where I dared to point a finger to incredibly bad judgement in actual admin actions on his part (of course completely unreferenced here).[2] And so on and so forth, including blatant falsehoods (which can be debunked in a minute, but hey, they contribute to the overall look-and-feel of this collection of "evidence"): I cannot be expected to jump through all the hoops presented to me: I prefer to spend my time improving articles over debunking empty allegations or disingenious misrepresentations. If I am supposed to take this "case" seriously, I demand that it is made clear what I am supposed to be accused of. As it is, this is little better than a kangaroo court show trial, encouraging every problem editor I have confronted in the past to idly chime in to vent spleen. I expect this case to surround the editing dispute at Afrocentrism, per the rfar submission. If there is sufficient material to justify an arbitration case on another dispute, such as Neopaganism (Pigman, bloodofox), Hindutva (Bakaman etc.), Armenia or (especially promising) Sir Nicholas' approach to Wikipedia adminship, let there be another rfar submission, and another evidence phase, where the behaviour of all involved parties is scrutinized. dab (𒁳) 09:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think every day this flying circus drags on works in Dab's favor. The contrasting nature of the various disputes shows the ridiculousness of the charges, eg. being both a "Nazi" and pro-Jewish. I recommend a summary dismissal of all the frivolous "he's not nice" claims against Dab. Focus on the supposed abuse of admin privileges, with the stipulation that the conduct of all parties to that dispute be evaluated. Ovadyah (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I would object to restricting this RfAr to allegations of abuse of admin privileges (where I believe the case is too thin), but I would support at this point restricting the case to the events surrounding his involvement in Afrocentrism and Race of Ancient Egyptians. I tend to agree that the case would become unmanageably wide otherwise.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, otherwise all the evidence I've recently submitted becomes rather pointless. We wouldn't want that, would we? Besides, this offers such a splendid opportunity to sort out some of our more, ah, problematic users. Obviously, by that phrase I don't mean Dbachmann. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"If I am supposed to take this "case" seriously, I demand that it is made clear what I am supposed to be accused of". Okay, here you go. I accuse you of repeatedly misusing the rollback tool in content disputes, after being politely asked not to. Others seem to have issue with other things you've done, but all I'd really like is for you to promise to stop using this admin-only tool in content disputes. As you know, rollback exists for the purpose of fighting vandalism, linkspam, and quickly undoing mistakes. As I've shown in my evidence submission, you incorporate it into edit-warring with others. I bare no grudge against you, and don't wish to see you desysopped; I just want a promise that content-dispute reverts will not be made with automatic tools. If you won't promise this (which you don't seem inclined to do), then I hope the committee will make a formal request of you to use the tool more conservatively. I asked the same thing - that is, the cessation of use of automatic tools in content disputes - of Bakasuprman a while back, too. Picaroon (t) 22:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so Dbachmann is also clear, what I'm accusing him of is a disrespectful and inappropriate attitude towards others who oppose him in content dispute, such as accusing others of trolling when they demonstrably aren't, engaging in edit wars rather than discussing on talk page, being dismissive of other people's opinions for no reason, pushing his own POV, even unsubstantiated, as being the NPOV position without discussion, failure to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and personal attacks. This behaviour has been demonstrated several times, and the only defense I've seen coming from Dbachmann is that it was "necessary". Necessary for what? is my question. All that, being said, I'll be the first to recognize that, on the other hand, Dbachmann has made numerous and very valuable contributions to Wikipedia as well. However, there is a part of his behaviour which needs to be formally addressed.

As far as the rest is concerned, I will let the arbitrators define the scope of this RfAr as they see most appropriate; but all this cannot just go unaddressed.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Though the "diffuse phrasing" be madness, yet there is method in it, that indeed makes it all very simple. Somebody claiming over 70.000 edits can't be addressed by RfAr to each and every single subject he seeks to distort by his evidenced disruptive and unsourced WP:OR uncivil opinionizing. Why, if all we can hope for is to have it all said. Here, how naive to think this would be just about "Afrocentrist pov pushing". This is about somebody that label at will and is hard on its way to institutionalize defamation, to discredit the encyclopedic neutrality of Wikipedia. Rokus01 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL cover evidence in ARBCOMS don't they?

I'm referring to Rokus01's Response to Mathsci. If this was posted anywhere else I'd warn him for failure to AGF. Saying "To put things clear from the start: I doubt his independence. His comments really puzzle me, his efforts to protect Dbachmann are too ridiculous" without evidence is unacceptable as proof in an ARBcom. He has not provided evidence for making any claim against Mathsci's independence, Rokus has merely taken a rhetorical stance against Mathsci.

On top of this Rokus's remark that: "Thus, I declare the "neutrality" and "objectivity" of Mathsci sufficiently disproven, and his "testimony" worthless crap" is absolutely not acceptable here or anywhere else on wikipedia. This is unacceptable incivility. It demonstartes a failure to assume good faith on Rokus's part--Cailil ^talk 17:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mister, I subscribe to WP:AGF a priori. However, after listening and verifying his allegations all of us have to arrive at an evaluation a posteriori. I detected the distortion of many facts, turning half-true statements into rhetoric insinuations that indeed are completely worthless as factual evidence. I am willing to show WP:CIVILity to persons, not to worthless crap. To say I uttered my impressions without evidence, while I already dedicated the equivalent of a small booklet here to point out Mathsci's lack of neutrality and objectivity, is to say the least a rhetoric stance against my evidence. Independence is something you have to prove, something you might have to fight for. Indeed, for independence you need qualities, not my WP:AGF. Don't think you'll get the good things in life for free. I will assume good faith to all that can't achieve any better, or that are hampered by the bonds of circumstances they can't throw off. Still I vehemently disagree to take it all for granted. Rokus01 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

On wikipedia we assume good faith of an other user until it can be demonstrated that the other user is not acting in good faith. You have not demonstrated one reason to even question Mathsci here. You have not provided one single diff showing why, where, or when Mathsci's independence could be questioned. No diffs, no evidence. You have also attempted to question the independence of mind of User:Angr by linking to his RfA. That is not evidence it is a debating tactic, a combination of ad hominem circumstantial and guilty by association both of which are logical fallacies. BTW my question above is rhetorical - these pages are covered by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Even when attempting to refute somebody else's evidence calling it "worthless crap" is not acceptable--Cailil ^talk 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Rokus01 is failing to assume good faith of other users, and that his language is uncivil. I would urge him to moderate his language, and to reexamine his argument that Mathsci and Angr are pawns of Dbachmann--if for no other reason than the accusation is so ridiculous it may cause the arbitrators to conclude that all of his evidence is of similar quality. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for refactoring Rokus01[3]. This at least prevents your evidence from breaching WP:NPA--Cailil ^talk 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Moreschi

I'm not going to reply to Moreschi, beyond saying that I agree with:

• 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.

Addhoc (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to add User: Moreschi to this proceeding

Given Moreschi's involvement in talk page discussion at Afrocentrism and his (overturned) banning of me from editing the article, and his participation here, I'd like to add him to this Arb Com proceeding. deeceevoice (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - I think we need to look in to his role as well. (Deeee, you should move this to the workshop page. I think that's where proposals go.) I thought of doing this myself but I'm still unclear on how this whole thing works. futurebird (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fb. Done. deeceevoice (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)