Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Case Opened on 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• futurebird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3

Statement by futurebird

Dbachmann has been condescending to me and to other users: [1], [2], [3], During a talk page argument at Afrocentricity over material Dbachmann deteled from the article, Dbachmann posted a link to a nearly two year old case on deeceevoice in order to "shame" her. Later Dbachmann openly asked another admin to look in to a block for him. (see: [4], [5]) He said that he could not do it himself because of his own incivility. Although he did not use his admin powers directly, he used his influence as an admin, his long standing membership in the community, and his reputation for making many positive contributions to take out his anger on another user. The user was initially blocked for a year for actions that are at worst on par with Dbachmann's actions and, in the opinion of a fair number of users, not even as egregious. (the block was first reduced, then lifted. since so many users objected) I am concerned about what appears to be an unfair double standard as well as Dbachmann's unwillingness to engage in any form of mediation to help bring this matter to a healthy close.

Response to Debachmann

A few questions since you do not understand what the problem is.

1. Do you think deeceevoice was blocked fairly?
2. Do you take any responsibility for her being blocked?
3. Is there anything that you might have done differently when editing the Afrocentricity article, or do you think you will continue to do such things in the future? futurebird 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Few more questions:

1. "and assorted pov-pushers ganging up against me" who are the assorted pov-pushers? Please name them and show diffs.
2. The Afrocentricity aricle was in the process' of improving when you stopped by. It is now in much better shape. (Though far from perfect) Many of the changes you reverted and called POV pushing at the time now stand, better sourced, and I think they will be there for the long haul. How did your reverts and talk page style of interaction help this article?futurebird 18:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
3. On the talk page you said in one of your first posts "the article needs to state up front that this is about a racialist ideology, not an academic hypothesis"[6] Do you still think this is true, or is it only part of the story? When you put this idea out there, what did you base your statement on? futurebird 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dbachmann

I have been notified of this. Beyond violation of Wikipedia:Mild condescension, I find it difficult to understand what I am accused of. See User_talk:Dbachmann#WP:CEM for my (patient, civil, but mildly annoyed) replies to futurebird's complaints. I am not aware of any complaints regarding "abuse of power". On the RfC page, we can read futurebird arguing that

"although he did not use his admin powers directly, he used his influence as an admin, his long standing membership in the community, and his reputation for making many positive contributions to take out his anger on another user. That is abuse of power." [the "other user" being User:Deeceevoice ]

well, this is my understanding of Wikipedia as a meritocracy. I am being accused of being a veteran editor in excellent standing, then, and, indirectly, of the fact that Deeceevoice's standing isn't all that excellent? That's a rather astounding feat of rhetorics then... According to this line of argument, we should conclude that we should offer positive discrimination to slashdot trolls, because, hey, their reputation as trolls gives them considerable disadvantage in getting their voice heard on Wikipedia. If the arbcom decides to consider this case, I would like to include Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) as a party, who took the opportunity of the RfC under discussion to continue his year-old (actually, biannarian) campaign of harassment against me. I do not feel I simply have to silently accept protracted campaigns of character assassination. If I have not protested against this harassment before, that is because I did never think it worth the effort. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• regarding the allegations of "systematic" insertion of "my" unsourced point of view made recently by bloodofox (below) and pigman (on the rfc): these are allegations that I am very much interested in discussing (as opposed to fuzzy complaints about civility issues designed for character assassination, and assorted pov-pushers ganging up against me because, after all, life would be so much easier for them without people enforcing policy on obscure articles). No arbitration is required to assist in such a discussion: I fully endorse Wikipedia policy regarding original research, and indeed I keep repeating it at people to the point of debility. Obviously, in the tens of thousands of edits I made to Wikipedia articles, I have made factual mistakes. Such mistakes I am anxious to rectify immediately as soon as they are pointed out to me. Bloodofox's complaint is motivated by a recent exchange here, and Pigman's by one here (in articles where they each have a vested interest, I might add). In both cases, I have been perfectly willing to discuss my edits constructively and adapt them informed by criticism. I have no idea why anyone would wish to relate these perfectly regular content disputes to the case at hand, unless we decide this is going to be a free-for-all "what we don't like about dab" roundabout. I would also like to add that if people have to dig for diffs literally 10,000s of edits down in my contribution history in order to make me look bad, I must actually be doing a much better job at being politically correct than I myself suspected. Incidentially, I believe that deeceevoice's asking that people be held to "higher standards" than her own is a joke: any admin even remotely approaching her own "standard" would be torn to pieces on AN/I within the hour. dab (𒁳) 13:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• in reply to FloNight, I would like to point out that no "attempts at dispute resolution have failed", a fortiori, since there is no dispute that could be resolved. At no point does this "case" involve any content dispute. Rather, I submit the astounding possibility that it is designed to distract from questions of content (a.k.a. "filibustering", "wikilawyering"). What this "case" comprises are allegations of "power abuse" on my part ("powers" of an undivulged nature, perhaps my famed but unproven ectoplasmatic powers), and the complaint that I have "condescendingly" pointed to an active arbcom restriction on deeceevoice, thus "shaming" her (as opposed to pitifully ineffective attempts to shame me by referring to a 2005 comment of mine which had been reviewed by the arbcom in February 2006, without consequence (except perhaps non-consensus to commend me for my efforts). dab (𒁳) 14:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Warlordjohncarter

I also was involved in the RfC but did not receive any notice. I ascribe this to the fact that Futurebird has stated that she was not sure exactly how to file an ArbCom case, not necessarily to any malicious intent. I also agree that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Dbachmann has abused any admin powers. The sole basis for this request, so far as I can tell, is the question of Dbachmann's civility toward some other users. Dbachmann himself has pointed out that lack of civility is not limited to just him in many of these discussions, and, if this case is to proceed, I believe that the actions of several other people involved, probably including myself, although I really hope I haven't done anything to demand censure, would be within the scope of this request. However, as a purely personal judgement, I am not at all sure myself that the actions of Dbachmann necessarily are such that they rise to the level of ArbCom review. But, luckily for me, it's not my call, it's the call of the members of the committee, who I thank for responding to this and all the other matters brought before them. John Carter 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ramdrake

I emphatically agree with User:Futurebird I have seen Dbachmann egregiously and repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy on at least two articles: Afrocentrism and Race of Ancient Egyptians. He has been uncivil yes, but also has launched into personal attacks and revert-warring, all this purportedly in the name of upholding policy. What I believe should be looked into is the seriousness of his breaches of policy as ocmpared to the potential breaches of policy he says he's trying to prevent. Basically, most of his defense for his behavior is that "the end justifies the means". My contention is that the violations of policy he has committed are way more serious than those he pretends to help avoid (if they indeed exist), worse that his behavior, rather than helping correcting problems, actually amplifies the very problems he tries to correct. I will, however, give him the benefit of the doubt that he genuinely believes he is helping Wikipedia by acting the way he does. In this matter, the opinions of experienced, neutral third parties such as the Arbitration Committee members may help him see that his behaviour is actually not helping the project when he starts edit warring and being dismissive of his fellow editors.--Ramdrake 15:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, in response to Dbachmann's statement which says there is no content dispute to mediate, I would then point to these two instances of edit-warring on Dbachmann's part (taken from the RfC). I wonder, why if there is no content dispute, he edit-warred over these changes:

Examples of edit-warring:

1-12:36 (Afrocentrism)

2-13:01 (Afrocentrism)

3-13:43 (Afrocentrism)

4-14:00 (Afrocentrism)

(another example, 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)

--Ramdrake 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Shot_info

Having encountered Dbachmann in elvish linguistics (of all things) in the past, the only experience I have ever had of him is of an excellent wikipedian. This RfArb only confirms for me one thing - if you edit Wikipedia for any length of time - having an RfArb started up against you (and accepted) is inevitable. And once you have an RfArb started up, it's pot-luck on the outcome. Shot info (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept to examine the behavior of all parties. Kirill 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, attempts at dispute resolution have not worked. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Passed 11 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Passed 11 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Passed 11 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators

4) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 11 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators: use of administrative tools in a dispute

5) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.

Passed 11 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

6) The rollback tool allows administrators to quickly perform reverts. It should be used with caution and restraint, in part because it does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. The rollback tool should not be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit.

Passed 10 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This case involves two sets of disputes. One of these originated in editorial conflicts over the content of the Afrocentrism article and subsequently spread to other venues, while the other arises from editing of articles relating to the Indian subcontinent. A common element is the involvement of administrator Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in both areas.

Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann

2) Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has repeatedly reverted content edits without offering any explanation, by way of the rollback tool (evidence) and has misused his administrative tools by protecting pages on which he was involved in content disputes (evidence).

Passed 9 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Dbachmann reminded

1) Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions.

Passed 9 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

2) The Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians articles are placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned from the article and its talk page by any uninvolved administrator. Any editor that continues to edit in violation of such a ban may be blocked as specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Superseded by motion at 02:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments by motion

Discretionary sanctions (January 2014)

Rescinded by motion

3) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized with immediate effect for all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing article probation remedy enacted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation. This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.

Passed by motion at 02:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Case renamed (January 2015)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann is renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy. The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Dbachmann decision do not need to be updated. The central log page of discretionary sanctions, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years the new name should be noted along with the old one. The rename of the Dbachmann case to Ancient Egyptian race controversy is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

Passed 10 to 1 by motion at 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes (Ancient Egyptian race controversy) (February 2022)

The first sentence of the January 2014 motion in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Passed 9 to 3 by motion at 20:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.