Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're looking for one of the other RfCs on this user you can find them here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2)

Contents 1 Comments 2 Question for Folantin 2.1 Response from Folantin 3 Question regarding xyzisequation 4 How did the previous RfC end? 4.1 Fix numbering? 5 Comment by Fowler&fowler 5.1 random break 5.2 Responding in general on systemic bias and in particular 6 Response to Justforasecond 7 Justforasecond: R E T I R E D? 8 Response to Bakaman 9 Problem 10 Response to futurebird: For those not directly involved 11 Next steps 12 I give up: I guess it's arbcom

[edit] Comments

I'd like to add my own Comment section, but I'm under the gun at the moment. I'd like to request that this matter be held over until after the Thanksgiving holiday, when I will have time to do so. (Will anybody see this?) deeceevoice (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm much mistaken, these RfCs usually stay open for weeks, so I'd say chances are it'll still be here after US Thanksgiving when you come back.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Time enough to recover from our tryptofan-induced stupors.... deeceevoice (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, turkey doesn't contain that much tryptophan (not more than most other meats). If you want tryptophan-induced stupor, try copious amounts of chocolate. Has a nice paradoxical effect too (stimulant and depressor).--Ramdrake (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yum...chocolate. :) - Jeeny ^(talk) 01:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know -- about turkey and other meats. And, yes. My drug of choice is definitely chocolate. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Folantin

Can you comment on your involvement with the specific articles mentioned in this RfC? You seems to imply that all of the users who support this RfC are "POV pushers". Am I misunderstanding you comment perhaps? If you did mean to imply that I am among the POV pushers, do you have any evidence to support this? futurebird (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also curious about this, Folantin. If I am included in this accusation, might you give me an example so that I can respond? :bloodofox: (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, since Dbachmann's main defense for edit warring is that he's pushing for respect of Wikipedia core policies (NPOV has been mentioned), can Folantin please bring specific, sourced examples to show that either the edits of those Dab edit wars against violate POV, or that the edits Dab pushes for actually respect NPOV better? Examples specific to the two main articles which prompted this RfC (Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians) would probably be best. In other words, I believe it would be appreciated if Folantin would substantiate his position with specific examples.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to Ramdrake's request with regard to DBachmann's revert of the edits I made at Afrocentrism. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this question. The comment is certainly a violation of WP:AGF, if not WP:NPA. Is it allowed to put a note there that states that this is being discussed here? — Sebastian 18:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a short note on Folantin's userpage about 4 days ago, but there was no response. futurebird (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this question too. I'd like to know how he "knows" this, or is this just another POV? - Jeeny ^(talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd all like these questions answered. Folatin's comment clearly says that any and all editors that support some sort of censure of Dbachmann are de facto pov-pushers. This is highly offensive to many long standing good faith editors. So I also think Futurebird, Bloodfox, Ramdrake and Deeceevoice's above questions need to be addressed. Cheers. Alun (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Folantin

This is the response from Folantin's user page (he/she said that I could move it here):

I haven't replied because I don't think there's much to clarify. If you want to know who the obvious "POV pushers" are then find out which commenters have extensive block logs. One is clearly a sock puppet of a banned user. My comment is based on my general impression of Dbachmann's behaviour and his dedication to improving content and introducing a note of neutrality into POV war zones. I thoroughly concur with his comments on civility here [1] and regret taking part in this time-wasting RfC. --Folantin (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this answers any of my questions? It seems that Folantin's comments have more to do with an old RFC that was for a different set of articles. Furthermore, the comments are based on a "general impression of Dbachmann's behavior" rather than his specific behavior on the articles cited in this RfC. As such, I don't know how much weight these comments can cary. I'm also troubled that this RfC, which as been supported by a number of long time users, who aren't known for "trolling" or for "POV pushing" is being called "time-wasting" --I find that dismissive and unhelpful. futurebird (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question either -- just more obfuscation, which reads to me think you've got no credible justification for excusing Bachmann's reprehensible conduct. But I'm wondering. Who's the banned user with the sock puppet? deeceevoice (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are banned users with sock puppets we ought to look in to that not just make wild accusations... right? futurebird (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding xyzisequation

Does anyone know why xyzisequation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked less than a day after their comment here? The reason given was "because of your harassing posts on other users' talk pages". This user's last talk page contribution before the block was on DBachmann's talk page[2], and it is impeccably polite. — Sebastian 18:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked xyzisequation. Within his first four posts, he was telling User:Paul Barlow to stop contributing to articles related to Indian history. I wouldn't call that "impeccably polite"--telling editors in good standing to stop editing a class of articles . His contributions strongly suggest that he's a throwaway sock rather than a new user--what genuinely new user finds the ANI on their seventh edit (and displays knowledge of prior disputes), or a user conduct RfC on their twelfth? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the civilty issue, we have WP:TT, such as {{uw-npa3}} for that. If that is appropriate. The first contribution by Xyzisequation on User talk:Paul Barlow is:

"Please be polite. Mr. Paul, kindly be polite with your responses. Calling me 'ignorant moron' is not a good way to respond."

Did you check if that is really what Paul Barlow said? Would you indef block him if he really did?

Regarding sockpuppet: I don't see that the account has been used "to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies" (per WP:SOCK). — Sebastian 19:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian, this should answer your question as to whether User:Paul Barlow really called User:Xyzisequation an ignorant moron. [3] Looks like he actually did.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh-uh! This looks like it's too big an issue to be appropriately discussed here. It should probably be posted on AN/I. I would do so myself, but I have to leave now. — Sebastian 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, anytime I see a user who immediately gets into disputes on user talk pages, ANI, and user conduct RfCs, and who demonstrates knowledge of already existing disputes, it's a reasonable assumption that it's a sockpuppet of an existing user (or a banned user)--and note that the admin who denied Xyzisequation's unblock request agreed with me. Such accounts should be blocked, because they're trolling. If the person wants to pursue the disputes under their regular username, that's fine, as long as they're civil while they do so. But you shouldn't create a new account to tell people to stop editing articles, to call people menaces to Wikipedia, etc.

Btw, Paul Barlow shouldn't have called Xyzisequation an "ignorant moron", that's uncivil language. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, Akhilleus! I now realize that we just generally have a different understanding of who should be blocked. A more appropriate place to discuss this would probably be WP:VPP. If anyone feels like discussing it there, please let me know. — Sebastian 07:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How did the previous RfC end?

From Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann, I can't see how it was resolved. Did it just peter out without a result? — Sebastian 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. futurebird (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading through it carefully, it looks like a majority of editors voicing their opinions found that Dbachmann was doing the right thing after all regarding the issues raised then.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2) This should have been number 3 Muntuwandi (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the entire thing, but what I did read seemed to me along the lines of like, "Yeah. He's offensive. Yeah, he misbehaves and abuses his authority, but we'll let him slide because he's doing it for The Cause." Again. More of the same double standard. deeceevoice (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix numbering?

Should we fix the numbering so it is clear that this is the third time? futurebird (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the numbering should be fixed, yes. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved it, I'll fix the re-direct after this closes to avoid confusion. futurebird (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Who moved it back?? futurebird (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

doh! I only moved the talk page before. I've fixed that.futurebird (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Fowler&fowler

User: Fowler&fowler likewise has expressed an equally useless (IMO) opinon in the comments section. He hasn't commented at all on Bachmann's behavior with regard to this RfC -- just generally excused Bachmann's failure to be "polite." Clearly, this RfC cites behaviors that go far beyond Bachmann's rudeness, which in and of itself is a legitimate issue of concern. Like Folantin, Fowler doesn't even bother to address the specific charges against Bachmann in any substantive or constructive way; he simply avoids the important issues raised, of abuse of admin powers, the charges of racism, the effect of Bachmann's disruptive conduct on the project, etc., etc., etc. In light of these things, I'm sorry to say that comments like those of Folantin and Fowler&fowler have little to no merit in this matter; they're irrelevant. An admin simply doesn't have carte blanche to do anything he or she pleases, wiki rules be damned. He's being called to account here, and those who would defend him will have to come up with a whole lot more than the flimsy excuses and vague language we've been offered thus far. deeceevoice (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well "character references" are okay, as long as it is clear that users who make such endorsements are not taking in to account the things listed at this RfC. Many of critical comments on this RfC also acknowledge that Dbachmann has, in some places, made positive contributions. So, that isn't really the issue. It just needs to be clear that these comments don't apply to the situation at hand. I have invited this user to clarify his/her remarks. futurebird (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm trying to assume good faith here... I think you should too. FWIW futurebird (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

AGF? You're kidding -- right? THat's not the issue here. The issue is what the man wrote, which is quoted above. That's as offensive as Dbachmann's racist rant about "sh*tholes," etc., etc., in India. deeceevoice (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fowler is entitled to eulogize dbachmann whatever way he pleases. I disagree with fowler's statement of course (being that the statement is vapid and pontificating), but his statements deserve as much air time as anyone else's.Bakaman 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Eulogize"? Did I miss something?  ;) deeceevoice (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Methinks he actually meant a panegyric. Made me raise an eyebrow too, FWIW.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's what it was supposed to be, it definitely fell flat, 'cause I ain't feelin' it. Maybe Bakaman's words were wishful thinking -- in the sense of the demise of DBachmann's sysop-hood -- in which case I'm definitely feelin' him on that. deeceevoice (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "Eulogize" doesn't just apply to a dead person. (Webster's. Eulogize: to speak or write in strong commendation of : extol in speech or writing : PRAISE <one of those rare days in June eulogized by poets -- Evelyn Barkins>.) "Eulogize" in this sense and "panegyrize," are nearly identical. (Webster's. Panegyrize: to praise highly : extol in public : write or deliver a panegyric on : EULOGIZE.) The slight difference is that "panegyrize" has a public aspect that "eulogize" doesn't always. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of character references, the aggregated block logs of some of Dbachmann's accusers are most impressive. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, I think no one up to now has responded to your above comment, Raymond, because it is completely irrelevant to this RfC. It is Bachmann's conduct under examination here. If you consider the conduct of others to be actionable, then I encourage you to act on that belief. You're certainly free to do so. But let's stay on topic here. deeceevoice (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, it is always reasonable to point out extenuating circumstances, which have often been mentioned here and uniformly ignored by certain parties. The possibility that this is an RfC on a single editor in numersous contentious discussions where the other parties are, apparently, being absolved of any comment themselves, I think can be seen by several people as being inherently unbalanced. A more generalized discussion of the conduct of all parties in these various discussions might strike some parties as being much more fair than simply pointing fingers at one party to the exclusion of all others. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) When one edits controversial pages without admin powers or powerful friends, one may get a bit scarred. You have to note that many of us have not been blocked since Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar. I myself got a scarred log after [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar 2 in which I was falsely accused of meatpuppetry and was blocked under dubious grounds by a number of admins, all of which were undone by competent admins.Bakaman 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they are. It's a good thing long block logs are not criteria for further punishment; wouldn't it be terrible if some of our admins thought that? Picaroon (t) 00:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, if certain individuals might harbor a grudge and be a bit quicker with negative comments based on the subject having either directly blocked/banned them, or been involved indirectly in such a block or ban, I think that would be relevant. I haven't checked to find out if that's the case here, and don't intend to, simply making an observation. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a terrible thing and I would strongly oppose any admin who thought that. There's no logical reason why the 20th offense should be treated any more harshly than the first. We must always assume good faith; there's no call to suspect that those with extensive records of disruption and harassment could possibly have anything less than the purest of motivations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of us have never been blocked. (despite editing articles that are just as controversial as anything Dbachmann has handled.) And unfair blocking is one of the issues that's being raised here anyway, so the logs are part of what's being disputed to some degree. futurebird (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, "victims" (if that's the word) tend to not be the most objective witnesses. Again, not pointing any fingers at anyone, because I haven't checked one way or another. And I agree with your statement that not all have been blocked, despite controversial issues. Feel free to look at List of notable converts to Christianity or any of the disciplinary actions against User:Bus stop that I've been involved in. But I have heard that 90% or so of all convicts assert their innocence, and I have to question whether any such system is really that bad. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add this, I work pretty hard to be "civil" I hope it works ---and I do honestly care about keeping the conversation open and not shutting anyone down, even when I think their ideas are totally wrong. I try to appeal to the sources and not lose my cool. One of the reason that I do this is because it has been my experience that when you present facts and sources that point to bias and racism people do not react well and you will be attacked for every single little error you make. So, I'd like to know why I must make the effort (or risk being blocked) but it's OK for an admin to make uncivil remarks, just say whatever he feels and edit-war based on his opinions? Why is that fair? Try to forget your personal connects to various users and the subject matter and consider this question in the abstract. I perceive (and I may be wrong) a double standard here. And it angers me. futurebird (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I very rarely allow any personal connections to users to cloud my judgement, and am frankly rather insulted that you jump to that conclusion. For what it's worth, I am, if the situation arises, trying to set up becoming an adopter of the editor I have the single lowest opinion of of anybody here, for reasons I won't go into, because, despite all of his attacks on me and others, there are to my eyes enough extenuating to justify that. Also, I live in what has been described as the most racially polarized cities in the country, St. Louis. As a "whitey" in a city where I have often been outnumbered 10 to 1 by black people at work, I think I might be in a better position than others to note when what is occasionally called "compensatory racism" or whatever phrase one wants to use is being displayed. Generally, it is only those who are not themselves caught up in that milieu who are able to see when that sort of unpleasant, racially-motivated behavior takes place. However, any time I say anything remotely like that, I am instantly branded a "racist" myself. I honestly think that at least some of what is happening in this case might be basically the same thing. And, yes, feel free to brand me as having a COI, or worse, a racist, if you so desire. Believe me, I've faced much more difficult situations along those lines than mere words on the internet. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

John, my response was not to you but to Picaroon. I typed it up before reading your last comment to me. Also, what is a COI? I don't think I've called anyone racist, although I did say that one of Dabachmann's comments was racist, but the comment is from 2005, so it's not the most important issue here.

I honestly think that at least some of what is happening in this case might be basically the same thing.

Can you be more specific? What part of this is "reverse racist"? (If that is what you're getting at.) futurebird (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest. I was trying to note that it is often possible (and happens here frankly more often than not) that individuals who have real emotional ties (and being black in the United States makes it all but impossible to not have at least a little emotional response to "racial" issues) to a certain issue will tend to view sources which they see more often treated positively in certain local press they access more often (like our local "black" newspaper) perhaps a bit more favorably than the broader society does. On that basis, they might, unknowingly, think that a source deserves more attention than a neutral outsider would, because of the frequency with which they see it referenced favorably. In this regard, having a well-trained outsider who's willing to take hits (and Dbachmann is a Swiss whose work on race in fiction and maybe elsewhere has been cited in books here), might be someone whose input could be treated better than it often is. Others have also pointed out how often he has been attacked for trying to ensure NPOV, and it's unfortunately normal for those who are regularly attacked to get a little hostile themselves after a while. Like I've said before, I don't entirely condone his conduct. However, I think that any single party trying to ensure impartiality over a long time when multiple others might occasionally be working just as hard to ensure the opposite might be expected to eventually get a little less than civil, particularly if they get insulted and attacked as often as he's been. I've noted he's often asked for input of others in these discussions he's involved in, and often doesn't get it. I can't criticize someone for trying to ensure impartiality even if they're the only ones trying to do so. So, yes, while I can see that maybe he would be better off if he occasionally had more "help" in ensuring objectivity of content, I can't fault him too much for once in a while feeling like the Lone Ranger against a full team of opponents and beginning to get a little hostile. I can and do think that his civility has been lacking at times, but have also seen how often he is himself treated at least as badly by others. And I've also noted that at least once he was possibly the only person involved (including me) even remotely being civil, and have to hold that to his credit. John Carter (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

However, I think that any single party trying to ensure impartiality over a long time when multiple others might occasionally be working just as hard to ensure the opposite might be expected to eventually get a little less than civil, particularly if they get insulted and attacked as often as he's been.

He's not the only one being attacked, I get posts on my talk page that I find offensive (I don't respond) -- and I revert blatantly racist vandalism to articles almost every single day. I put up with this stuff too and I try to keep it all civil. It's not like we're talking face to face-- one can think before posting. (This isn't directed at you John as much as any user who has been uncivil or poo-pooed the idea that it's possible or important to be civil.)

I can and do think that his civility has been lacking at times...

I'm glad that you can at least see this.

I was trying to note that it is often possible (and happens here frankly more often than not) that individuals who have real emotional ties (and being black in the United States makes it all but impossible to not have at least a little emotional response to "racial" issues) to a certain issue will tend to view sources which they see more often treated positively in certain local press they access more often (like our local "black" newspaper) perhaps a bit more favorably than the broader society does.

I think it is just as difficult for a white person to remain impartial and unemotional in matters of race, don't you? Or are you saying that only minorities become overly emotional and impartial in these matters? In a similar fashion, white people, may at times, view a source, such as a black newspaper in a unnecessarily negative light due to their emotional ties to racial issues. I don't really see the difference.

On that basis, they might, unknowingly, think that a source deserves more attention than a neutral outsider would, because of the frequency with which they see it referenced favorably.

Is a "neutral outsider" necessarily white? futurebird (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is a competent editor on issues pertaining to race necessarily non-white? *sigh* Turning this into a race issue is a straw man, IMO. I advise futurebird, deeceevoice and other plaintiffs here to compare your own contributions to those of DBachmann. I don't mean numbers of edits. I mean areas of activity in the mainspace. After doing so, ask yourself if an uninvolved editor would get the impression that you are here to help the project as a whole - or rather that you are here to use Wikipedia as a platform from which to advance a particular agenda. The reason I mention this is that, while a few of you grudgingly pay lipservice to the substantial contributions DBachmann has made to the project as a whole, I seriously doubt that many of you have worked with him or observed him work outside of your respective narrow lists of 'hot topics'. You are not being unfairly targeted, discriminated against or verbally abused here. Lots of people have worked and continue to work quite well with DBachmann, regardless of personal differences which may exist. Adherence to policy is the key to colaboration with dab. Fail in that, and his patience grows thin very quickly. And judging by the sheer volume of work he has accomplished and the number of trolls he has combatted, I don't blame him for it. Aryaman (☼) 06:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think my contributions speak for themselves I work on the articles that are in the most sorry state, that I happen to know anything about. The fact that these articles often relate to the black experience says something about the wikipedia, not my preferences as an editor. I'm a math major who likes to paint, I'm interested in urban planning and graffiti. I own maybe two books on race issues, I own maybe 100 or 200 on maths topics. Race? It's not really my thing, but the errors and missing information are so glaring that it is what I end up doing. An not enough people seem to be helping.

Also, I have looked at dab's other edits and I have acknowledged (in this RfC) his good work.

Turning this into a race issue is a straw man, IMO.

I was looking at all of this in terms of how the standards for admins in terms of civility seem to be different than the standards for users. I was not the one who brought race in to it. John Carter did that. I was responding to his idea that black editors are too emotional to write on issues of race. futurebird (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I said exactly what you ascribe to me. What I thought I said was that it is hard for any American to be completely impartial on the issues of race, given the frequency with which it is made a hot button issue here. Like I said, I was once rather less than civil myself in a dispute, and Dbachmann was just about the only one who was civil to all parties. And at no point did I say a neutral outsider had to be white. What I was implying that a knoledgabale Swiss, from a country known for its neutrality, might be an extremely good resource from which parties from all sides in America might benefit, giving the fact that what is a very hot-button in this country is much less so there, and can probably be viewed on a more dispassionate basis. The fact that he seems to be more knowledgable than most about many of these controversial issues is an added plus. I do think that Americans of all colors often play up the racial differences, and have been in a few cases here where that was blatant and obvious. That doesn't mean that we Americans can't be neutral, just that we are probably among the people least likely to be neutral. While I do not fault you as an individual for being particularly overtly involved in many of these issues which are so heatedly discussed here, I do think that it would be all but impossible for either of us to be completely fair. And, frankly, if Dbachmann were a Thai with the same editor characteristics, I'd probably comment on his lack of involvement in these issues in the same way. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeezus, John. With all due respect -- and I mean that -- I find your remarks incredibly ahistorical, simplistic and naive. Because Bachmann is from Switzerland, he's cool on such issues? [4][5][6] Clearly, his record says otherwise. And that's what we're discussing here -- not his nationality. deeceevoice (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] random break

---

Actually, I don't think I said exactly what you ascribe to me. What I thought I said was that it is hard for any American to be completely impartial on the issues of race, given the frequency with which it is made a hot button issue here.

I didn't get this at all because you only used an example of how black people might be impartial. Thanks for clarifying.

Like I said, I was once rather less than civil myself in a dispute, and Dbachmann was just about the only one who was civil to all parties. And at no point did I say a neutral outsider had to be white. What I was implying that a knoledgabale Swiss, from a country known for its neutrality, might be an extremely good resource from which parties from all sides in America might benefit, giving the fact that what is a very hot-button in this country is much less so there, and can probably be viewed on a more dispassionate basis.

Except that some of Dbachmann's remarks really throw his neutrality in to question! Don't you think? I agree that people from the US can be too focused on race, but at the same time, if he's had no experience with these issues he might not understand all of the intricacies of the issue as well, it's a double edged sword... and in the series of edits shown in this RfC I don't think Dbachmann has spent enough time asking questions and considering each point of view with respect. He was not in any way acting like the model of the perfect neural third party. I do believe that he really thinks he's being fair-minded, but there's a bit more to it than that. We should all be aware that we can slide in to personal bias, no matter what country we're from, and we should consider each view, and if it makes no sense, question it in a respectful manner. I expect this of others but especially of admins. futurebird (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as someone who has reviewed the remarks that have been raised, I think what might be being seen by others as lack of neutrality is seen by me as being evidence of an individual who is trying to be objective realizing that many editors who wish to contribute to specific subjects, including content related to "ethnic" matters across the world, tend to want to do so because they do want to put forward their own POV without respect for accuracy and neutrality. Again, no criticism of you as an individual inherently here. He has been at these disputes much longer than most of us, apparently, according to most, arguing in defense of policy, and it is to be expected that "veterans" use more colorful language regarding their conflicts than others. So, while I can and do fault him to a degree for occasionally being less than civil, I also note that the times when he is being less than civil tend to be times when others are being at least as uncivil toward him. I also note that no one to date is calling into question that misconduct of others, but instead focusing on one "warrior for NPOV"'s reactions to being treated much less than civilly more often as an individual than he any of the others he has been accused of treating uncivilly. So, yes, if he did have a greater number of editors willing to help him preserve NPOV in much of this controversial content in a civil manner, I have no doubt that his own incidents of incivility would drop dramatically. And, in that best of all possible worlds, I would look like a young Pierce Brosnan, be a genius, and have more money than Donald Trump. The fact that he has conducted and still conducts much of this effort to ensure NPOV alone in this imperfect world, and is insulted as often as he is for doing so, seems to me to be one of the primary reasons for this occasional lack of civility. And, yes, I do think that the frequent lack of civility of others toward him has to be taken into account here, however much effort is spent trying to ignore that. Yes, I would expect better civility from an admin in general myself. However, I also know that there are cases when people are promoted more for their work than their manners, and have to reasonably acknowledge that fact. In this case, I think his work has been rarely if ever criticized. His means of expression seems to be the basic problem, and, while that is a real problem, it is, at least to my eyes, not necessarily the biggest problem involved here. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You're striking out with me, John. This doesn't wash either. Your post reads like so much (more) bland excuse making. In Afrocentrism, as in, presumably, other cases, Bachmann invited conflict where there was none. Disagreement, yes, but conflict no. No one was being rude to Bachmann. No one provoked him -- except by editing responsibly in reaction to his admitted revert warring and failure to provide edit notes. The only thing I did was demand he substantiate his edits, stop his revert warring and insulting behavior and justify his groundless accusations. He wouldn't, couldn't and didn't. He was the offending party, behaving like a bull in a china shop and throwing around his admin authority, tossing around offensive tags and accusing me of something I was clearly not doing. Such disruptive, accusatory, counterproductive behavior on his part has been well documented by numerous contributors to this RfC. I'm not feelin' you on this one either, John. The facts in certainly one of the two preciptating incidents to this RfC simply do not support your contentions. The same can be said for other incidents brought to light in this RfC as well. Dbachmann has not been the poor, put-upon, well-meaning mediator antagonized into rudeness/incivility. This guy comes to the party ready to fight and spewing insults. He's routinely running around the website trawling for "trolls" as he calls them, in many cases, clearly well-meaning editors contributing in good faith, who simply don't fit with Bachmann's view of the world. He's running around throwing molotov cocktails into relatively calm situations and blaming the innocent bystanders for the conflagration. Dbachmann would be well advised to stop striking matches to dry tinder if he doesn't want to get burned. And he certainly can't credibly cry arson when he's the one caught with the matches not even in his pocket, but pinned to his puffed-out chest in plain sight. deeceevoice (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And your own inherently judgemental, clearly insulting, and apparently completely biased post above certainly helps make it clear to I think just about everybody that you yourself have a definite axe to grind. I wonder how much of an RfC could be started based on some of the inherently uncivil, prejudicial comments on this page itself? John Carter (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What you've read is a frank assessment of your comments and of Bachmann's conduct -- the latter echoed by numerous contributors to this RfC. If you've been insulted, then that was certainly not my intention. I think others easily could read my comments quite differently. Is it the metaphors you find so offensive? I don't get it. If you sincerely think, however, that I've stepped over the line in this matter, then you're of course entitled to open an RfC. However, I find it exceedingly curious and emblematic of precisely the double standard so many have complained about in this RfC that you seem so willing to excuse the habtitually blatant incivilities of an admin, but are quick to threaten action against someone merely speaking her mind in a manner that in no way rises to the levels and extent of incivility, intimidation and false accusations Bachmann has been roundly accused of herein, by multiple editors, and with ample documentation. deeceevoice (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, John. Dab has essentially refused to apologize for anything. In his eyes he can admit to no wrongdoing. I don't know why Deecee insists on phrasing everything so harshly when it just makes some people angrier, but, frankly, I agree with her outline of what happened: The people at the Afrocentrism article were engaging in a polite disagreement about matters of content. Many sides were represented. Wikidudeman, Ramdrake, myself and Deeceevoice don't agree on much about this topic-- Keep that in mind. But, we do agree that Debachmann was rude. He showed up and started to belittle everyone he disagreed with regardless of if they were rude to him or not. Deeceevoice was even banned for being rude, perhaps unfairly. But NOTHING has happened to Dbachmann, who in a few of our opinions, started it all. If you'll defend Dbachmann's rudeness why won't you defend Deeceevoice's comments too? Why should Dbachmann have a free pass to write rude comments and edit war when it gets other editors banned? I see Deeceevoice's remarks in much the same way that you see Dbachmann's remarks: as a reasonable reaction to undue provocation that is, in its assessment of the facts, at root correct. So, why do we have this double standard? futurebird (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, fb! So, you think my words are as rude as Bachmann's? Wow. I happen to think you're way off base there. Perhaps we can discuss that. Your way is certainly not mine (I guess that much is obvious lol!), but I do believe your intentions are honorable. So, I'm willing to engage in a give-and-take with you on that score in another venue. Insofar as I'm concerned, however, plain-speak is often the shortest distance between two rhetorical points. IMO, an RfC isn't the time or place to mince words or stroke egos simply for the sake of being nice; it is where people should be encouraged to speak plainly about their perceptions of problems that negatively impact the project for the purpose of gaining understanding and achieving just resolution. Curiously, I don't see my comments as being gratuitously offensive -- or offensive at all. Perhaps not pleasant; disagreements are often unpleasant. And I don't believe anyone is gleeful about this RfC. It is simply nasty business that must be attended to. The fact is I don't know if there is a way to sugarcoat the perception -- again, shared by several, and I daresay a majority, of contributors here -- that someone in a position of authority has been abusing his admin privileges by behaving in a bullying, abusive and disruptive manner, and to say that to people who seem to want to find excuses for such conduct and just let it slide. deeceevoice (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you intend to be rude but you can come across that way some of the time.

Curiously, I don't see my comments as being gratuitously offensive -- or offensive at all. Perhaps not pleasant; disagreements are often unpleasant.

Yes, but trying to make things pleasant can help people reach a consensus. Otherwise the argument never ends. I didn't think this last comment was offensive, but it was unpleasantly blunt. I'm not surprised it bothered John so much, it didn't bother me. I am curious exactly what bothered him so much, but I want to move on here. You could have said the same thing in a different way and we could skip all of the complaints about civility. Of course, I find the idea of doing and RfC on your comments on this talk page... absurd. But, it is fair to point out when people are being blunt and hope that they'll work with you to make the conversation more smooth. That last part about "working with you" is key because it's what Dab has not really done. 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (futurebird (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

(de-indent)Just thought I'd add a few words here, as this is something that strikes me as extremely important. Futurebird, Deeceevoice, Warlordjohncarter, most other editors and myself have different views on the matter at hand and I suspect more than a few things we disagree about between ourselves. However, and I'll give that to everyone, we are all willing to explain our positions to each other, to ensure they are understood by others, and that we understand other people's positions, even though we may not agree with them. This is where, in my experience, we differ from Dbachmann's attitude (he may have had another, different and more positive attitude at other times, but the only experience I've had with him were at Afrocentrism and Race of Ancient Egyptians). In both cases, as far as I could fathom, there was no willingness to communicate to understand the different positions of the various editors, or even to make the other editors understand his position (except somehting that very much came across as "that's my POV, and I know I'm right"). I believe that no matter how huge the differences in viewpoints may be, if editors make a genuine effort to work with each other, some sort of mutually acceptable position becomes possible. While I can understand that Dbachmann may be tired of rehashing his position several times over, I think it is equally important that he understand that this is exactly what is needed (to keep discussion open at all times) in order to build an encyclopaedia that aims at representing all the various significant viewpoints. This is one of the main reasons talk pages exist or each article. Without these discussions, the encyclopaedia stops evolving, and Wikipedia only becomes tomorrow's Encyclopaedia Britannica 1913.

Sorry, just had to say something here. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Ramdrake. Your comments are welcome and well said. Ditto. deeceevoice (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is another case of a Vested Contributor? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responding in general on systemic bias and in particular

There is absolutely no question, Aryaman, that I am here to "advance an agenda" -- and that is to contribute as factually and accurately as I can primarily to articles treating matters of interest to me. In my case, that happens to be matters treating people of color. As such -- as I have repeatedly pointed out -- I am no different from an editor who chooses to focus broadly on, say, linguistics, or geography, or music.

futurebird's question about neutrality is far from a "strawman"; it fundamentally challenges a blatantly erroneous, commonly held and, IMO, arrogant assumption that goes to the heart of the issues at hand. A very real problem here is the "us against them" mentality evidenced by Bachmann and others, a knee-jerk assumption that simply because someone comes from a different weltanschaaung, a paradigm which is divergent from a mainstream, white-bread, European one, that he or she is the enemy and must be silenced by any means necessary and that in dealing with such perspectives, all bets are off. This "shoot at will," no-holds-barred, often lynch-mob mentality is what pervades this ambitious project that, paradoxically, purports to be global in scope. Contrary to DBachmann's purportedly "anti-nationalist" (say it, Bachmann; you'd prefer "tribalism," yes?) credo, the black and brown peoples of the "shitholes" of the planet do not require the strongarm intervention of a "benevolent," white overseer to help us sort out our muddled minds and establish Order. Such a presumption reeks of paternalism, whiteman arrogance, fascism -- and, yes, racism. As evidenced by the antics of Dbachmann and those who would excuse his reprehensible conduct and beliefs/attitudes, Wikipedia has a very long way to go in this regard, indeed. Wales' vision of a storehouse of collective human knowledge accessible to all is a farce and a sham, and will continue to be, unless and until the project, its framers and chief advocates/apologists mature in their fundamental philosophical, intellectual and, I daresay, emotional and spiritual underpinnings to accommodate the actual prerequisites for such a daring/grandiose vision -- among them, importantly, tolerance and openness to new ways of seeing the world. And this is particularly true given the inherent bias of the project because of the very real global digital divide that very starkly defines -- and skews -- in every way the demographics of the project: economics across the entire spectrum (from macroeconomics and global development and underdevelopment, down to members of certain groups at a village and individual level), geography, age, ethnicity/"race" and even gender.

As so-called "minorities" in the West, I daresay that people of color regularly engaged in meaningful intercourse/contact with majority culture, as well as those of us who, in our respective native countries (of origin/lineage) who are bi- or multicultural (as opposed to those who may be, in effect, ghettoized and isolated and not exposed in significant ways to Western culture), are often better equipped to see the bigger picture than whites, because (often) from the time we are born we are exposed to both Western values and knowledge and the values and knowledge of The Other(s). As vulnerable populations (militarily, socially, economically, politically) our very physical, psychological, intellectual and spiritual survival/well-being depends on being able to effectively assimilate all of these elements into something of a practical, living, breathing, functioning gestalt, that enables us to function among our disparate and often colliding worlds. We live in this confluence of cultures, moving regularly among, and often buffeted by, these diverse cultural currents -- we code switch in not only our language, but in the ways we physically carry ourselves and think and behave. That is not to say that whites do not or cannot have a similar psychic dexterity in so doing, but it is unusual. Whites usually are free to remain steadfastly white/white-bread, and they are not regularly or commonly confronted, as are non-whites, with presumptions and prejudices that question/challenge/deny their fundamental humanity or innate worth in the collective sense. Too, they often enjoy superior economic, social, educational and political status/advantage/privilege, which, in effect, functions to immunize and assure them against the consequences of those relatively few Others who might hold such similar backward notions, but about the savageness or inherent inferiority of whites, or who would militantly challenge non-white privilege and authority. For people of color, this, if not fluidity of movement among worlds, certainly a kind of rapprochement with the often warring/conflicting elements of them -- is a matter of survival. So, we internalize, filter and assimilate not only that which is our own, but also that which is not. Oftentimes that is to our detriment, as in the internalization of white supremacist values and beliefs, which manifests as self-loathing. Thankfully, blessedly, oftentimes it is to our distinct advantage. That is the pure genius of the sheer subversiveness of African-Americans, the descendants of slaves, in a 1950s U.S. still firmly grounded in the psychology and ideologies of white supremacy and white, male privilege and their corollaries: the ideology and practice of black inferiority, black deprivation and black disadvantage. If we, The Other, did not understand more clearly than most whites themselves the true vision and promise of the Red, White and Blue, flag-waving pap fed every U.S. citizen from childhood, we could not have brought about the transformation of American society that has touched, instructed, inspired and helped give voice to women, Native Americans, Latinos, Asians (name the nationality), the disabled, gays, etc., etc., in this same nation, and also marginalized peoples the world over.

Speaking personally, my experience as an African in the New World has afforded me a mental toughness and groundedness/centeredness that ignorant, racist goons can't begin to touch. Yet I often read here about how I must be "hurt" or "offended" by, for instance, the goings on at Wikipedia involving people whom I don't even know, much less have any reason to respect or care what they think of me or my people, involving people who matter to me not one whit. I shake my head at the presumption of comments like those of John Carter, telling us how we are so reflexively emotional when confronted by racism, real or perceived, that we somehow are rendered incapable of rational/impartial thought or action. That is projection. It presumes an assumption of, or over-valuing of, acceptance/inclusion in a common community peopled by whites and then a wounded response of some sort when confronted with rejection. Or it assumes caring. I find such suggestions/presumptions amusing, indeed. In relation to the West, We have always been The Other. No news flash there. ;) And the sanest/healthiest of us fully recognize and accept that fact; that's just the way things be. The wisest among us learned long ago not to seek validation in the eyes of the enemy -- those who would deny the humanity of us or our people, or our fundamental human and civil rights, our common human aspirations, our common gifts from a common Creator (the very thinly veiled racism/abysmal ignorance evidenced in the edits and talk page discussion of Race and intelligence and the racism of User: Wareware[7] and User: -The Bold Guy-[8] being blatant examples of such supreme backwardness and animus, if not virulent hatred/contempt).

The frequent, completely unwarranted/unreasoning and often rabid hostility, both random and calculated, from other editors, admins (like Dbachmann and Moreschi and Friday and many others I could easily name), trolls and vandals that people of color regularly encounter on this white-dominated website -- particularly in articles treating black subject matter -- surely give the lie to such a presumption of white emotional/ mental/ psychological/ intellectual equilibrium. These virtually daily affronts to people of color are fairly screaming evidence that Wikipedia is far from ready for prime time as a global or even reliable Western encyclopaeda. Wikipedia's pervading ethos is unambiguously and appallingly provincial, clearly appallingly hostile to The Other. Far too much of this crap is condoned, even plotted, secretly/tacitly -- or excused outright, such as in my recent ANI and in the RfC currently before us, and the assailed party/parties made the scapegoat/s.

And, truth be told, with regard to hostility and uwarranted attacks at Wikipedia, it often matters not where Other contributors stand vis-a-vis their own world-view or even their intellectual/real contributions to the project. Dbachmann and Justforasecond's scorn directed at Futurebird, who by my assessment is pretty mainstream, very assimilated in many ways and extremely non-threatening as black folks go (no insult implied or intended, fb), is a prime example of this.

But -- news flash -- We (The Other) are the majority of the planet. So, let loose your firm grip on your safe, little presumptions, spit out the Blue Pill and try -- for just a moment; take that leap of disbelief -- to wrap your brains around that. Please. The project will be better and far more useful for it.

So, please. No more comments about how Our vision is somehow clouded by the narrowness of Our experience and Our unavoidable emotionalism/ sensitivity -- and that only whites, or those who buy into Western assumptions and norms, are capable of being truly universal, impartial and aloof. Such a narrow view of impartiality and NPOV is rarely in evidence so clearly as in the words of Dbachmann and one of his primary supporters/defenders/kindred spirits, User: Moreschi -- who, alarmingly, tellingly, is up for election to the Arb Com -- in the precipitating actions related to this RfC:

Absolutely. A "diverse point of view" is the last thing we want. We need one point of view - the neutral one.[9] -- User:Moreschi

Simply put, that's just a crock. deeceevoice (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Justforasecond

Setting the record straight: I'm doing nothing of the sort, JFAS. I see you're back grinding the same old axe. And try to keep on point. This RfC is about User: Dbachmann. deeceevoice (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not how RfCs work. Given that anybody can initiate an RfC, it's perfectly sensible for users to investigate the backgrounds of those bringing up an RfC to see if they have any ulterior motives or to judge how their behaviour compares with that of the editor they are complaining about. Judging by your track record, Deecevoice, I can see why you might wish this otherwise. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with anyone knowing anything about my record here at Wikipedia. I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever written. What I objected to is the fact that JFAS is off-point, and I deleted his comments, because that is precisely what I've seen done in other RfC's. If I was incorrect in doing so, then I appreciate the correction. You will note that I also deleted a "no support" vote JFAS interjected under the comment by Futurebird, which I believe to be appropriate. Users may indicate their nonsupport of a comment by not signing it, but they may not enter a vote of no support. If he wishes to comment, he is perfectly free to do so elsewhere, but not to create a "no support" section in a space designated for another purpose. At least that is my understanding of the process. Nor is it appropriate or helpful to label, as did JFAS, another contributor's comments herein as "chatter." It is needlessly dismissive, uncivil and gratuitously calculated to offend -- which is clear, given the fact that futurebird says pointedly in her comment that she was insulted by Dbachmann's use of the term. Futurebird is known for her kind and cooperative nature and treats others with respect and fairness. Unlike JFAS, she has been over the past several months, a regular editor who has contributed mightily to the project. And while JFAS clearly is accustomed to such disruptive conduct at Wikipedia, this sort of baiting is completely out of line and totally unacceptable in this proceeding.deeceevoice (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not ashamed of calling people "crakkkas"???? But you are angry because you think bachmann is racist???? Justforasecond (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(*sigh*) You bring this up every chance you get, and it's gotten very, very old/stale. For the umpteenth time, JFAS, "cracker" is a pejorative only sometimes, with southerners commonly using the term in a value-neutral sense. I am from Louisiana -- and, yes -- it's a word used in polite company. The way I've used it -- with the "KKK" -- it is indicative/descriptive of a particular mind-set that I shouldn't have to go into. Again. (This explanation is offered here to all readers other than JFAS, because he is already fully aware that he's raising a red herring. It's his typical "Anything deeceevoice is for, I'm against" rut. He isn't an active editor, but surfaces every now and again on occasions such as this to grind this axe.) It's no surprise whatsoever that JFAS sees nothing "all that greivous" or "problematic" with the appalling diffs and shocking commentary brought to light here by an unusual and alarming number of other users in this case involving Dbachmann. After all, JFAS already has demonstrated his own temperament and tendencies here in his wholly unwarranted insult directed at futurebird that obviously was calculated to offend. And that is unfortunate -- she didn't deserve it. And very sad.

Furthermore, nowhere in this RfC have I expressed anger. That's an emotion, and my comments here are considered, thoughtful and wholly rational. There should be zero tolerance for the kind of attitudes DBachmann continues to express openly on this website -- even with this RfC in process. The man refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing or mistakes on his part. It's one thing for Dbachmann to obfuscate, stonewall and attack others editing in good faith in article talk spaces and user talk pages in an attempt to avoid answering for his egregiously arrogant, abusive and disruptive behavior. But it is extremely telling when someone who's been an administrator as long as he has possesses such contempt/lack of regard for the RfC process, that he can't even bother to respond to the very serious and troubling charges leveled at him by multiple users -- fellow admins included -- here.deeceevoice (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, setting the record straight for you: I am the one who initiated this RfC. If you wish to comment on anyone's background, please comment on mine. DCV happens to have endorsed several comments here, she hasn't even provided a statement of her own, officially. Calling trolls people whose views one disagrees with, reverting on sight and without explanation, refusing to engage in a talk page discussion to resolve a content dispute, edit-warring are all unacceptable behavior coming from a regular user; but coming from such a long-standing user and occuring not at just one article, but across a range of articles, from someone who's a respected admin to boot, that sets a really bad example for Wikipedia. That says to everyone that such behavior is acceptable, when it isn't at all. That's the whole point of this RfC.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem willing to accept behaviour like that of Deeceevoice, so...--Folantin (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does Ramdrake state that he accepts this behaviour from other users? Can you point out this comment of his please? Just to get this straight, this sort of behaviour certainly can be seem from Dbachmann, furthermore he has a long standing on Wikipedia and is an admin. There is clear evidence that Dbachmann thinks that being an admin gives him certain editorial privileges that non admins do not have. In fact he seems to believe that admins have greater authority to dictate what does or does not belong in any given article than ordinary editors, that they are more than simply administrators, but that they are authority figures, and that they certainly have some sort of superior editorial status. As such he seems to believe that they do not need to engage in talk page discussions just like other editors. He also seems to think that they do not need to be civil, like ordinary editors. He should understand that this is unacceptable. He has thrown his weight around as if every editor who disagrees with him is a naughty child and he the authority figure. He has stated as much in diffs above, saying that "admins" need to get involved and sort out what he thinks are difficult articles, difficult articles being those which do not conform to his point of view, apparently. When he was recently blocked he tried to belittle the blocking admin by saying that "73% support wasn't considered a "consensus" in my day." [10], then there was all the "fellow admin" tosh, like admins are somehow supposed to give each other slack or something (is it a special club, like the Masons?), before finally accepting that he had actually violated the 3rr rule. People who work hard here editing articles and actually engaging in talk page discussions are not "trolls" just because they happen to disagree with him, and it is deliberately provocative to reduce every content dispute to "trollish behaviour". In conclusion, this bahaviour is unacceptable from anyone, including Dbachmann, and no one here has ever said that this bahaviour would have been acceptable from anyone else, as far as I can see. Alun (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wobble, thanks for reminding me of that incident, which I came across near the beginning of this RfC in checking Bachmann's edit record. I saw his appalling response to the new admin, but it somehow slipped my mind. I started to say this incident was arrogant bullying of the worst sort, but there are actually several examples of Bachmann's conduct herein that are orders of magnitude worse. His insulting "do you know who I am?" attempt at intimidation and humiliation of another admin, who was merely carrying out his responsibilities as he understood them, is blatantly indefensible. deeceevoice (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for refocusing the discussion on the matter at hand, Ramdrake: the disruptive, abusive, insulting, POV-pushing and racist antics of User: Dbachmann, and his pattern of abuse of administrative authority. deeceevoice (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support going to arbcom. I don't think these editors can work out their dispute without assistance. If bachmann is really so awful then no problem, and if he isn't, maybe his accusers will get some sanction. I don't know most of the editors here but it seems like quite a afew signed onto the "looks like wolves attacking the sheepdog" summary Justforasecond (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(moved comments)

I have no beef with deeceevoice. She is just another problem editor. I do not intend to spend five minutes collecting diffs on her: her previous arbitration case speaks for itself. I do encourage people to go to arbitration with this, but I will not invest any time in arguing my case beyond re-affirming my strict upholding of WP:ENC, my endorsement of WP:SPADE, and my willingness to apologize immediately if I inadvertedly should have violated either. dab (𒁳) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

JFAS is engaging in hyperbole. I'm not "busy cavassing" anyone. And perhaps the reason you won't "spend five minutes collecting diffs on [me]" is that the weak diffs presented at the recent ANI case that purportedly supported your charges against me of "POV pushing" and "trolling" were wholly unconvincing/worthless, which is why that case died on the vine. And you're absolutely correct: the record at Afrocentrism speaks for itself. It points very clearly to the charges lodged herein against you in this RfC -- not at me -- which is why we're here. The "problem editor" at Afrocentrism -- by all accounts of the involved editors there -- was you. deeceevoice (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justforasecond: R E T I R E D?

Justforasecond an active user? The user page says that he/she is "retired" ? futurebird (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, JFAS resurfaces every time there is an RfC or some similar action in which I am involved to play his doggedly contrarian -- i.e., "anything deeceevoice supports, I'm against" -- card. That's all this is. Anyone who's been at Wikipedia for a year-and-a-half or more should be pretty familiar with his behavior. And you're correct. He isn't a regularly contributing editor at all -- at least not under that name. His primary interests in the project appear to be a rather, IMO, sad and unhealthful fixation with me, a strong dislike for Ron Dellums and a general antipathy toward black subject matter. Oh, yes -- and Jews for Jesus. (Check his edit history. It's pretty predictable.) But you can count on him showing up whenever my user name is attached to any sort of sanctions process here at the project, bringing up the same old, old non-issues. It's just another tiresome aspect of this place that one must come to expect. deeceevoice (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. thanks. futurebird (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Bakaman

• I removed it from my section to place it where it belongs, here.Bakaman 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I thank Bakaman for adequatly exposing the spirit of this "RfC". I am amazed how he manages to unearth the 2005 "shit-hole" diff yet once again with a nearly straight face. Newcomers to this fine piece of Wikipedia culture can read all about it here. dab (𒁳) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Interested parties may also wish to look at my post about Bakasuprman's statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also interesting is this rhetorical question posed by dab. Never mind arbcom's rulings on the issue.Bakaman 03:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"I might consider asking for blanking of this page after closure due to calculated character assassination. "

That's wrong, man. He wants to censor the whole thing? And he tells futurebird that she can't be taken seriously because she agreed with Bakaman??? Now anyone who agrees is on that "side."??? What kind of intimidation tactic is that????

Listen. I try to reason with this guy and he's just like "talk to the hand". Just look at his user page where I try to give him some advice. I tried to let him know that if he just apologized for some of the nasty things he's said it might show that he was mature enough to move past this RfC and start improving. But, he won't take any of the blame, his rudeness is supposed to be fine because it's "caused by trolls" and if you don't agree with that, then you're a troll-- it's fine even though it effects other users who have never even done anything. We're supposed to just put up with it and be quiet. You know what? Whatever! I'm not doing that. He also sees this thing like there are "sides" and he's trying to "win" -- that's not the way to look at it. There ought to be a way where everyone can "win" I always look around for that. JJJamal (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, please do not refer to other users as "fascist", whether you think they are or arent. You dont show yourself off too well when using the exact same words you accuse dab of abusing.Bakaman 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

Isn't this "canvassing?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJJJamal&diff=174325989&oldid=174202097 JJJamal (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit to your talk page seems to be that user's only edit. So, I fear it's just a sock, but... yes ... I do think that is canvassing. futurebird (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to futurebird: For those not directly involved

Actually, it would be more fair to say that he took my side elsewhere, even when I was being far less than polite myself. I do think you might be oversimplifying the nature of the comments by others here, possibly, intentionally or unintentionally, in response to personal, internal, motivations. And, unfortunately, there can be and have been RfCs which have been filed for less than laudable reasons. Also, as noted, the evidence presented here is almost inherently one-sided, from the complainers. Any contrary evidence against the complainers is apparently lacking. It's been suggested that ArbCom might be the way to go to try to get objective, neutral, uninvolved responses, and I tend to think that's true. Uninvolved editors aren't going to respond to a user RfC if they haven't had dealings with the user in question. Alternately, if the objective is to find a way to resolve the complaints about the subject editor's occasional lack of civility, I've said before and will say again that if others behave civilly toward him, he has demonstrated a willingness to be civil in return. The fact that he himself is so often treated less than civilly can be expected to get responses in kind. I was in one case when I and everyone else who were invovled longer were behaving less than civilly toward each other, but we all treated him, if not each other, civilly, and he responded in kind. I have no reason to think that if he were to see a dropoff in the number of attacks and insults he receives, the reason for complaints about his conduct would dropoff as well. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1. If people want to present other evidence they are free to do so.
2. How did he respond "in kind" to me? I was never uncivil towards him. He should have responded civilly towards me but I was treated with contempt because he did not like or agree with the the sources I was suggesting that we add to the article. Look at the talk page. futurebird (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, keep this focused on what Futurebird brought the RfC for.--Parkwells (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

--- I am neither friend nor enemey of dbachmann. I came here with an open mind and clicked on a few diffs and found they were either minor incivilities or represented totally dishonestly, like the fellow that claimed dbachmann called india a shithole. I clicked on the link and that's not at all what he said. Or the time when he said you had "chattered". Maybe I clicked on the wrong diffs, maybe if I had chosed 4 others to look into I'd see something differently. But at this point I doubt they reach the level of the discourse on this very page. Several users have called bachmann a racist, unquestionably a personal attack. Deeceevoice still thinks it is OK to call white people "crakkkas", for heavenes sake. That's why I'd like to see this at arbcom. So bachmann doesn't have to put up with this. And please top moving comments to the discussion page. It looks conspicuously like an effort to cover up. Justforasecond (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, You're not exactly uninvolved, it seems that you have some issues with deeceevoice that go back a ways. futurebird (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am obviously "involved", I'm typing here right? But I am not a "friend" or "enemy" of bachmann as you have labeled everyone. I couldn't care less if he were banned. But it is bizarre that you ignore people attacking him left and right. Would you like it if someone called your spouse a crakkker and then insisted it was just fine to do so? Justforasecond (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about.futurebird (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Same old red herring referred to above, fb -- my use of the word "craKKKer" I can't recall how long ago (two years?) to indicate someone of an obvious, backward mind-set. And you're absolutely right. He's obviously not really uninvolved. His record is very plain in that regard. deeceevoice (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird is right to focus on what took place in this incident, but it does appear there is history of others with Dbachmann. I was not directly involved. Although I had been making contributions (mostly questions and copy editing) on "Afrocentrism", I had taken a few days off when this incident started. I am a relatively new editor on Wikipedia, but an experienced writer, editor and manager. You don't encourage people to reach solutions by insulting them. Futurebird conducted herself with courtesy as she always does. She had invited me to the WP:AFRO project because she appreciated my contributions to an article. Our exchanges have always been focused on content.

Dbachmann's comments to her and other editors in the first days as this evolved were unproductive and condescending. They went against Wikipedia policy of being welcoming, of assuming good faith, and of focusing on content. When I saw all this, at first I did not want to take the time to read it all and get involved. The Afrocentrism article is controversial but is improving, whether or not it would ever meet Dbachmann's final approval. His disruption and getting off-topic has caused many people to lose time on this but I care that Wikipedia should do what it says - provide an environment where well-intentioned people can work. Futurebird did not create the policies cited; they are supposedly what Wikipedia encourages. Because Dbachmann has been involved for longer than I, he may have more of a proprietary interest, but clearly Wikipedia will always be changing, and none of us can afford that. I have an interest in having editors be welcoming and courteous.--Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't blame you for feeling overwhelmed by all of the text here. It's been a pretty long conversation-- at this point people are presenting evidence and giving statements here. I really hate to distract you from your usual work of editing with this case, but I'll point out that anyone in the wikipedia community is welcome to make a statement. See you around, Parkwells! futurebird (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next steps

I think we should summarize the various suggested actions which range from "do nothing" to "desysoping" and see if there is any momentum behind any one of the actions. Should we start a new section in the RfC for this? What's the normal protocol? futurebird (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Summarizing the conclusions is appropriate, but I don't know if there's a prescribed manner of doing that. Still, given the refusal of Dbachmann to constructively engage this process, or even to admit any wrongdoing whatsoever, it ultimately looks like a case for the Arb Com. deeceevoice (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see that. It generally isn't the case that any editor necessarily has to "defend" himself in an RfC that I know of, although I haven't been in that many. And ArbCom only takes cases that have already been through Mediation, which to the best of my knowledge this hasn't been yet. Also, as I remember, ArbCom can make rulings on the conduct of all involved parties, not just the one a complaint may be filed against. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It generally isn't the case that any editor necessarily has to "defend" himself in an RfC that I know of

A response is expected. WP:RFC futurebird (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Response" is not quite the same as "defense" or "apology." And, like I said, I don't know this, but I think his endorsing of Folantin's summary might easily qualify as being enough of a response. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because many of those weighing in have called for some corrective action in this matter, then I would suggest taking it to mediation. My guess is that DBachmann won't participate, given his refusal to constructively engage this process. Should that be the unfortunate case, then the next step would be to the Arb Com. deeceevoice (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't think we have any choice but to move this along. I don't think desysoping him is fair, but I also think that no action at all-- esp since he has made no apology is unfair in light of the way that others have been treated. I think he should be banned for three days. That's my idea. futurebird (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No objections to the idea, but I don't think that this is necessarily the best place to propose such an idea. And I have reason to believe that any such request of ArbCom would be denied without a mediation attempt. Such mediation would have to follow the form of such mediation. Now, it might be possible to file a request at AN/I for a block, but I don't think such is generally given by mediation, and ArbCom generally doesn't deal with such mild actions as a three-day block. Also, there isn't really any direct evidence that dab wouldn't participate in Mediation, if the request for mediation were well defined, so I very much doubt ArbCom would accept the case until and unless mediation is tried. He has made a statement here in which he expressed his opinions on the matter, and I honestly think that's all that's required in such an RfC. I acknowledge filing a request for mediation probably wouldn't be very easy either, but that is the logical and indicated next step in the process. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with futurebird's proposed sanction; it is far too lenient, considering the persistent pattern of behavior, his complete intransigence and Dbachmann's admin status. (I honestly can't tell if he's too proud to admit he's acted improperly or if he really believes that the ends justify the means for the sake of The Project.) But I do agree that this is neither the time nor the place to discuss such specific remedies.

It seems, then, mediation it is. So, John, others, how do you suggest we "define"/frame the mediation case? I'm not experienced in such matters and neither, I suppose, is futurebird. Input? deeceevoice (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Never been involved in it myself, but Wikipedia:Requests for mediation seems to be the appropriate page, with maybe Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation as well, although the latter is still self-described as "experimental". John Carter (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we're still trying to engage Dbachmann successfully/meaningfully in this regard, perhaps you, John, could approach him to inquire if he has a preferred venue. It doesn't matter to me. I think we've already spent way to much time on this matter. That's not to say it isn't important; it is, and that's precisely why so many of us have devoted the time and attention we have to it. But if there's one way or another more likely to yield a useful and appropriate resolution, then let's find out. My guess is he'll dismiss any suggestion at mediation, but it doesn't hurt to see what he thinks. Admittedly, I haven't investigated either route. Does anybody have any strong feelings/preferences one way or the other? Does anyone object to giving Bachmann a chance to decide which one he might prefer? Perhaps a straw poll of those who've already weighed in on this matter is in order. To my way of thinking, whatever gets the job done -- and that includes, if mediation fails, taking it to the Arb Com. deeceevoice (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW and strictly or informational purposes, quickly reading through the RfM guide confirmed two things: sanctions in this case are purely the purview of the Arbitration Committee, so there's no point mentioning possible sanctions at either the RfC or RfM; second, an RfM isn't strictly necessary before going to RfArb, and an RfM filed solely for the prupose of then going to RfArb is likely to be rejected. Does anybody think this may warrant a specific course of action?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you request mediation, Dbachmann will likely refuse it; if you file a request for arbitration, ArbCom will likely refuse it. I don't think this RfC is likely to lead anywhere productive at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel ArbCom would refuse arbitration of this dispute? What do you feel is missing?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict response) Akhilleus, you may well be right. In response to Ramdrake, if the RfM makes it clear that it is a step to ArbCom, yeah, that might well be refused. The question then becomes wheterh RfM or Community enforceable mediation would be acceptable to the rest of you on its own, without a later expected referral to ArbCom. And I can't address whether or not dab would agree to mediation or not. And, clearly, at this point, any attempt at mediation is clearly missing, which is something ArbCom generally looks for. That wouldn't rule out WP:AN/I, but I'm not sure whether it would be reasonable to expect any action there. John Carter (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

John, this RfC was opened after the case was presented at WP:ANI. So, I guess opening an RfM for the sake of seeking mediation is the logical next step?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Whether the rest of you would consider Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation acceptable as an alternative is another question. It is experimental, but it does offer enforcement provisions short of ArbCom, if all parties agree to them. That's a big "if", but evidently a lot of you think ArbCom itself is a big if too, so I'm not sure what would be preferable. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'd go with CEM.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with whatever the group decides. If there's a need to tie-break or something (not likely), then I'll make a preference known. deeceevoice (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think CEM is the best next step. I hope that dbachmann will get on board. futurebird (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

fyi - I've just lost a very dear friend, so I probably won't be around for a while. Do what you gotta do. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's awful. We'll take care of it. Should I start work on the CEM today? futurebird (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I give up: I guess it's arbcom

I asked Dbachmann about WP:CEM. He did not want to do that. So, I plan to take this arbcom, anyone care to help? futurebird 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFAR and follow the rules there. But any request has to filed by one party initially. I think I've only ever filed one request myself, so I'm not really that good at it. But once it's filed, and you notify everyone involved as required, then others will make their own statements as well. But more or less by the rules there no one can "help" you make your own statement, as each statement has to be from the individual him/herself. John Carter 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a waste of your time and effort. Dab has become so powerful on Wikipedia, so that no body is dared to do anything to him. I doubt even ArbComm would accept it. He is the SUPER ADMIN, SUPER ARBITRATOR etc.

Possibly, but I doubt almost paranoic comments from IP's that don't even bother to sign their posts are going to carry much weight with anyone at all. John Carter 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it... futurebird 19:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've spent time reading all this and trying to catch up, as I'm a relatively new editor - at first I hadn't realized Dbachmann wouldn't go along with mediation. I added comments and support for your position to the RfC, but wasn't contributing on the days much of the conflict occurred at the "Afrocentric" article. Many people have made comments about arbcom; I don't know enough about it. You have been welcoming, encouraging, and try to resolve issues in a balanced way, but Dbachmann did not show that capacity in the November comments on Afrocentrism, nor in some of the other material people have copied here, however much he may have at other times. It's moved fast.--Parkwells (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as Dbachmann has indicated elsewhere, he did not say that he wouldn't go for mediation. His statement referred to can be found here. While that might be what some construed his statement as being, I personally read it, as he himself as indicated elsewhere, as being an at least mildly exasperated response regarding a proposed action. He did not actually even remotely rule out the possibility of mediation, but simply indicated his response to a mediator would be no different than his direct response to a question without mediation, in effect implying it was unnecessary. Saying something is unneccesary and saying you will refuse to take part in activity are entirely separate things, although I guess I can understand how it might be mistakenly perceived as saying that he would not take part in mediation. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He has never said as much to me, John. When I first brought the case to arbcom he should have at least, at that point, sent me a message suggesting we try mediation first if this really was the case. He did not do that. I would have been happier if we could have done mediation, but I interpreted his response as unwillingness to participate. I still do. Barring any clarification from Dbachmann himself I have no reason to change this interpretation. I think it would be difficult to "stop" the arbcom case at this point, but if Dbachmann wants to initiate such a motion, and move this back to mediation I would be more than happy to support it. But it needs to come from him. futurebird (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)