Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy

message: ====Statement by Folantin====
I will add more later if necessary, but I think this case should be thrown out as a waste of time. I would certainly like to note that Futurebird's statement at the top of this RfAr is false: "I also let the other users who were involved in the RfC know." I was involved in the RfC and I have not been informed. The users Futurebird has informed all seem to share a similar point of view to hers. --Folantin 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one idea, though - accept the case, relabel it from Dbachmann to Bakasuprman, whose comments at the RFC were appalling, and ban Baka as a disruptive editor. I, and other admins, will be delighted to provide plentiful evidence of time-wasting on Bakasuprman's part. Is this an option, or do I have to file a separate Bakasuprman case myself? Moreschi  If you've written a quality article... 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this idea.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. GizzaDiscuss © 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't.--D-Boy (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by uninvolved editors before the case was opened

message: I will add more later if necessary, but I think this case should be thrown out as a waste of time. I would certainly like to note that Futurebird's statement at the top of this RfAr is false: "I also let the other users who were involved in the RfC know." I was involved in the RfC and I have not been informed. The users Futurebird has informed all seem to share a similar point of view to hers. --Folantin 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Folantin|Folantin]]

message: Any suggestion that Dbachmann has abused his sysop bit is a ludicrous falsehood. Check his logs, he doesn't use the bit (in terms of blocks, protects, deletes) enough to abuse it. Other matters apart, of which I will say more later, this is not a question of admin abuse. Moreschi  If you've written a quality article... 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one idea, though - accept the case, relabel it from Dbachmann to Bakasuprman, whose comments at the RFC were appalling, and ban Baka as a disruptive editor. I, and other admins, will be delighted to provide plentiful evidence of time-wasting on Bakasuprman's part. Is this an option, or do I have to file a separate Bakasuprman case myself? Moreschi  If you've written a quality article... 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this idea.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. GizzaDiscuss © 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't.--D-Boy (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Moreschi

message: As I noted on the RFC, dbachmann's behaviour may not always be exemplary, but there is nothing in it that is fundamentally detrimental to WP. 
Nor is there anything in his actions that warrants treatment as an arbitration case. 
All but one of the points raised in this RFAR have significant deficits:
* "he refuses a scheme aimed at resolving edit-warring" is not correct. What dbachmann is here (which is, to better demonstrate context, one paragraph earlier than the link provided by futurebird) refusing to do is accept Wikidudeman's stipulation to unprotect only if everyone agrees to 1RR. What dbachmann however insists on is that policy be enforced, and that edit warring should cease on that basis. This is a matter of talking past each other: Wikidudeman's immediate concern was unprotection, but dab was thinking one step further.
* "openly asked another admin to look in to a block for him" is also not correct. The link provided shows dbachmann asking another admin to "try [his] hand at Afrocentrism too." Nothing more.
* "He is asked to participate in WP:CEM, but refuses" is also not correct. What dbachmann really said was (paraphrasing for terseness) If futurebird has issues then bring them to him and he will reply, and that his replies would be identical regardless of whether the issues were communicated directly or via a mediator.
* The other points (of all but one) are speculative and without diffs to support them.
The remaining issue relates to WP:CIVIL, and here I find that dbachmann does indeed sometimes overstep the boundaries of proper behavior. But as I noted on the RfC, this is neither typical for him, nor would it be realistic to expect him to always be the perfect angel. Dbachmann is one of the few tough guys we have on the good side. If the occasional burst of incivility is the price to pay for it, then its a very low price. As Folantin put it: "More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated."
If this matter remains between futurebird and dbachmann, then perhaps it would be better if futurebird and dbachmann had a little fireside chat between them before proceeding for arbitration. dbachmann has more than once said that he will talk to anyone who is willing to talk to him. One occasion of him doing so is #6 above, linked to by futurebird as an indication of "refusal" to go to mediation.
I would also like to note that although I endorsed 
Folantin's comment on the RFC, I got a notice of this RFAR from futurbird anyway. As such, its not fair to suggest that futurebird only notified those people who agreed with his position.
-- Fullstop 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Fullstop

message: As one of many Wikipedia editors who have been on the receiving end of Dbachmann’s name-calling and incivility, I have much sympathy for Futurebird. Dbachmann’s attitude is habitual, and is surprisingly supported by other long-time editors and admins. My concern is not just Dbachmann, but the growing number of long-time editors or admins who seem to think that WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA do not apply to them. There does seem to be some sort of ‘meritocracy’ (Dbachmann's term) in which violations of long-time core policies are ok when certain editors claim to be defending the homeland (Wikipedia) - even though many innocent, good-faith editors are attacked. Other recent cases of uncivil or over-reaching admins coming before ArbCom seem to indicate that this approach is becoming institutionalized. I don’t plan on being involved if this case is accepted, but I would like to see ArbCom and the community give some clarity on the broader issue –  do longtime admins have more leeway in violating WP’s most core policies? If so, what do we do about the growing number of editors who seem to be getting the idea that rude comments and incivility are the way things are now done on Wikipedia? –priyanath talk 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by (uninvolved) Priyanath

message: This is a waste of everyone's time, not least futurebird's, who, to her/his credit, has contributed more in a handful of edits to the article Cauchy's integral formula than she/he can ever hope to in the thousands of words of this arbitration.  As for the issue itself, I can only restate what I said in the RfC:
In his interview in the New York Times two weekends ago, Jimbo Wales, in talking about Wikipedia, said,   That Dab is knowledgeable is something I can personally attest to from his edits on India-related pages. Whether he is polite or not is less relevant to the enterprise of building an encyclopedia. "Civility is important, but it does not trump all other considerations" (Raymond Arritt).  Wikipedia has to decide, at the highest levels, whether facile politeness displayed by persistent "idiots" should be valued more than occasional not-so-polite expression of exasperation by a knowledgeable person who the core community appreciates. Otherwise, I see a lot of time wasted by knowledgeable editors (like Dab) in bending over backwards to appease others who not only cannot write and are often ignorant, but who also unrelentingly verbalize the cockeyed perspectives of their particular upbringing, education, or milieu in the name of universal truth, and yet can quote chapter and verse from the Wikipedia rule book on politeness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved [[user:Fowler&fowler|Fowler&fowler]]

message: I agree with Fowler&fowler.  The community has long decided to tollerate a bit of incivility from users whose main purpose is the creation of good encyclopedia.  Dab is by far not the worst offender in this situation.  I recommend the committee not take this case, similar to the case of MONGO recently also declined.  The issues are similar (though not the same).  --Rocksanddirt 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Rocksanddirt]]

message: I came across a recent RFC on Dbachmann, and I was appalled by what I read.  It's closer to a character assault than a complaint about user conduct.  I recommend the committee take the case - to dispense swift justice to some of the complainers who have behaved far worse than Dab. Ovadyah 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Ovadyah]]

message: Hello there. Distancing myself from the Afrocentricism camp that I have nothing to do with, I would like to state that I've experienced issues with Dab over my time with Wikipedia that are considerably more troubling to me. That is Dab's intentional and systematic insertion of his own unreferenced material into numerous articles that is largely going unchecked, which can be a serious problem for those persons or subjects being accused or associated with these claims. For a thorough explanation, please see my statement here:  I do not support ridiculous claims that Dab is a "racist" or a "fascist" at all but I think he can have a serious problem with policy when it suits him. I am not happy with having to go around mopping up after an administrator in the remote regions of Wikipedia that I inhabit. Other administrators in good standing working in similar areas have had such issues as well, as you can see in the comments section of the link in my post above by User:Kathryn NicDhàna & in User:Pigman's own comments here:. :bloodofox: 06:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:bloodofox]]

message: I'm surprised to see that the arbitrators are accepting this case, as I don't think the issues involved here are serious enough to need arbitration. However, if this case goes forward, I think that  needs to be added as a party, since her block and unblock are being blamed on Dbachmann somehow (see futurebird's questions above).
	 
Please consider adding Bakasuprman as a party as well. As I've already posted on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, I think that his statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_3#Comment_from_Bakaman violates the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar_2; if the issue at hand in this case is civility, the accusation that Dbachmann "is inherently prejudiced against actual Indians/Hindus editing pages on India and Hinduism" should be given the attention it deserves. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved [[User:Akhilleus]]

message: I'm not intimidated one whit by Fowler or others who have attempted and threatened, as in the ANI against DBachmann, from the very beginning to twist any action against him into an ongoing "get-deeceevoice" effort.  This issue is too important to just let slide.  As regular contributors to the project, we have a right to expect, and a responsibility to demand, that Dbachmann and other admins be held to the same standards -- indeed, higher standards -- as those to which regular users are held.  I'm grieving a personal loss at the moment, however, and have neither the time nor the patience for this now.  So, don't expect anything from me until next week.  Feel free, however, to refer in context to any of the copious comments I've registered on this matter.  I stand by them.  deeceevoice 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by deeceevoice 

message: I too am a bit astonished that the committee are taking on this case. Having had a look at the Indian articles DBachmann recently edited, I find some of the charges preposterous to say the least, and warranting at least a warning. If you read that 2005 statement correctly, DBachmann never called India a sh*thole, he just said that there is now internet access for a lot of people who feel real ethnic hatred, for whatever reason. And still that diff has been used as a rallying cry for many months. Some of the people who claim DBachmann is some sort of cultural/identical/religious... racist, who feels he must carry the white man's burden, were taking away precisely that sort of information from Koenraad Elst. The point we should consider is that if you are as prolific and as knowledgeable an editor as DBachmann and you venture into these sensible areas, you will have to face a lot of incivility, and will be far more vulnerable to provocation than other editors. And despite the provocation, he seems to have remained fairly calm, I have seen. Therefore, I sincerely hope the committee will indeed consider the behaviour of anyone involved in this.--Paul Pieniezny 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved user Paul Pieniezny 

message: I've removed the following note about Deeceevoice.
*, banned under General annctions/pseudoscience from the article and talk pages of all articles related to the race of ancient people/peoples until 5 May 2009. Noted here for information. Tom Harrison Talk 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about Deeceevoice removed 

message: Insufficient communication and improper use of administration occurred when I was blocked by User:Ice_Cold_Beer. His justificaitons were as follows 
#. Personal attacks - I responded to personal attacks, and those initiated by me were not resolved with a banning of those users. 
#. Accused of not citing. All of my edits, save the most recent were cited. And I was in the process of uploading citations when I was banned.  
#. POV Pushing - This is the most important, I and others are accused of POV pushing by standing against a POV pushing tactic: To make Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy a referendum against Afrocentricism with use of weasel words and POV manipulations. If you read the article, you will find a consistent use of making the debate to seem to start with Afrocentricists trying to make the Egyptians black, when I have posted and cited thoroughly that the view of their race was believed black by European white archaeologists over a century before. I am doing an excellent job in chronologically describing the ebb and flow of the debte, but in the process it shows that the race of the Ancient Egyptians is not definitive. What users like dbachmann and Ice_cold_beer want is for the article to push the POV that the Egyptians are not black, and then show the contrary opinion as fringe. It is not fringe. Six editors have been banned for contributing when they have already made very well done citations to support the fact that it is NOT fringe. --Panehesy (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request by Panehesy 

message: I have been banned from editing for a period of six months by User:Ice_Cold_Beer for 1. POV pushing. 2. Personal Attacks 3. Contributions without citations. This is the latest in a pattern of POV administration in the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I request that, of course, my ban be lifted, as I was not given proper administrative warning, nor was I properly communicated in the manner. I also did not engage in POV pushing. I frequently reminded the contributors to not engage in turning the article into a referendum on another related issue Afrocentricism, which was becoming a habit. At one point, an editor put in comments about how Afrocentricism tried to change the European heritage (which has nothing to do with the article).
I have notified one other user User:AncientObserver who is directly affected by the ban itself. As I am relatively new to this process, I am under a disadvantage as I am going linearly through the administrative hierarchy, and trying to navigate through these processes to get a remedy that allows the article to be complete. This article, as I understand it is almost like a sandbox in itself to prevent editing in the Ancient Egyptian article. For example, all the images shown in the Ancient Egyptian article exclude those which display Ancient Egyptians with negroid characteristics. Please advise. --Panehesy (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Panehesy 

message: I would like to note that this is not the proper forum for such a complaint and the complainant has not formatted this request properly. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Ice Cold Beer 

message: P has been banned from the article and talk only . P is moving far too fast - he hasn't even noticed that he has turned the article into a redlink. It should be Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I fixed up the link to ICB though. The article itself is an edit warring disaster and a mess of socks, probably best erased William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification by William M. Connolley 

message: It is perfectly unclear why I am listed as "involved" here, since I have not taken any administrative actions in this area for a very long time.
Not that this matters, since this is a painfully obvious case of a user banned for excellent reasons who just won't stop wikilawyering about it. Nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Dbachmann 

message: I have also been banned with five other people including Panehesy Log of blocks and bans from contributing to this article for six months by User:Ice Cold Beer. I am very much surprised by this decision since I have received no warnings and also since User:Dbachmann who in the first place brought disruptive edits to the article is not banned. I suspect an abuse of power by adm Ice Cold Beer and ask that the ban be lifted.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

message: Ice Cold Beer questions suggests this is not the appropriate venue to request clarification; I believe it is, given the fact that in banning user:Ancient Observer, instead of edit differences providing evidence of disruptive editing, Ice Cold Beer simply refered to the ArbCom article probation ; thus, the question is: does the probation justify the ban?  I personally think that it does not.  I think that Ice Cold Beer is using the probation to prop up a ban made as an administrator that would not otherwise be sustained by the community.
User dab questions why he is a named party.  My reading of the disputes on the article talk page is that they either began or were seriously fueled by dab's tendentious edit in which he identified the controversy with Afrocentrism .  This is an underhanded way of changing the topic of the article from a controversy over the racial identification of ancient Egyptions, in which there are at least two, if not several, sides, to a controversy over Afrocentrism.  Of course, the controversy over the race of ancient Egyptians is a far more complicated controversy - between Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists, and between racial essentialists and social constructioniss.  I am not trying to ask ArbCom to involve itself in a content dispute; I am explaining why, in the context of this content dispute, dab's comment was tendentious.
I do not think dab should be banned.  But for the same reasons, I do not believe that those editors who disagree with him should be banned either.  At least some of the banned editors have made good faith efforts to reach compromises.  Banning them is counterproductive.
I admit I could be wrong here, but given that Ice Cold Beer has not provided edit-diffs for evidence (at least not on the article talk page, or the talk pages of Ancient Observe and others) how else am I to understand what appears to be hasty and ill-conceived bans? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved user Slrubenstein

message: Reply to Newyorkbrad: The more recent decisions tell us that appeals against discretionary sanctions are to be directed to either the ArbCom or to the relevant administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE). This older case does not contain such a provision. I recommend that the arbitrators clarify that this appeals procedure is applicable to all older discretionary sanctions remedies. Panehesy and the other complainants will then have the option to make an appeal to either WP:AE or to the Committee (by e-mail, I suppose, because there is no dedicated subpage for appeals).  Sandstein  13:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by uninvolved Sandstein

message: I've skimmed slRubenstein's comments above, and I agree with him.
I haven't been substantially involved in this article for some time, so I suppose that qualifies me as "uninvolved."  If I had been involved, I suspect I would have been banned along with the other editors.  This appears to be just another attempt at censoring a non-Eurocentric viewpoint at Wikipedia.  The article banning of the above parties appears no different from the content ban precipitously and unjustly imposed on me at Afrocentrism - which subsequently was overturned.  Dbachmann is at it again.  The bans should be overturned and the article locked down in the interim.  Bachmann & Co. drastically changed the article from a version that was arrived at after months of wrangling and negotiation to a highly POV and astoundingly inaccurate mischaracterization of the nature of subject matter, and now it seems these editors/admins have conspired to enforce their contorted and inaccurate version of the article by locking out those with whom they disagree.  This isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.  Either you're willing to work collaboratively to hash out differences, or you're not.  And I think it's quite clear to everyone involved, and those who are uninvolved, that collaboration and compromise are not Dbachmann's strong suit.  That's not a slam on Bachmann; that's just stating fact.  deeceevoice (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved user [[User: deeceevoice]]

message: There has been atrocious policy violating behavior by Dbachmann, Ice Cold Beer and William Connolley. Dbachmann has a strong POV about how the article should read as shown here in this rant full of personal attacks such as the very first sentence that says "Slrubenstein quite obviously has no idea what he is talking about."  
Without appropriately assessing the situation Connolley and Ice Cold Beer have sided with Dbachmann and engaged in inappropriate reversions and protections in support of their preferred article version, finally banning four editors with whom they disagree. Ice Cold Beer has refused to provide a single diff in support of the ban despite repeated requests from several editors. These admins also fail to understand and appreciate that their view is not the only one that's valid. An article that was edited constructively and collaboratively by numerous editors with varying points of view over a period of several months was gutted by them because they didn't like it. 
Dbachmann and Dougweller have been pushing one particular perspective, setting up Afrocentrism as a straw man and knocking it down, ignoring that there are many other perspectives in the history of the debate and investigation into who the Egyptians were. Their bias against Afrocentric approaches does not entitle them to launch a smearing attack on that approach or the editor who chooses to add content reflecting that perspective (most of the editors are not advocating that point of view, a fact that the admins involved seem unable to grasp which is good evidence of their refusal to properly investigate and their failure to understand the situation). This is not how we do things on Wikipedia and the situation needs prompt correction.
The appropriate action at this point is to ban Dbachmann from the article. He has caused enough disruption there. Ice Cold Beer and William Connolley should refrain from any admin actions related to the article, but they are welcome to engage in constructive discussion and editing. The four good faith editors should be apologized to and immediately unbanned. Their patience and restrained response in the face of this admin abuse has been extraordinary and should be commended. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply to Doug Weller and clarificiation in support of my statement: Wow indeed. Here's the consensus version of the article worked up by many editors over months . Here's the version of the article reverted to by William Connolley (and previously protected by him) . This is also the version being pushed by Dbachmann. If someone wants to argue that this version doesn't focus (almost solely) on Afrocentrism, setting it up only to debunk it, then I have serious concerns over his or her reading comprehension skills. The series of actions leading up to and including the ban are an outrageous abuse of admin tools and need to be corrected ASAP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:ChildofMidnight]]

message: Wow. This is getting more and more surreal, I thought we had enough drama, but evidently I was wrong. The discrepancy between what I have written on various talk pages and what CoM claims I've said is a deep chasm (CoM, why do other people have to provide diffs but you seem to think it is ok to make personal attacks without providing them?). Among other things, I already made it clear to you that it is not true that the article only discusses Afro-Centrism and nothing before that school of thought developed, albeit only summarily, and I'd be surprised if you could have have anywhere that I said no other perspectives should be included, although you will find me saying that they should be included. Claims like this just make the whole issue even more of a quagmire. And I have seen very little 'good faith' in this debate, mainly a lot of bad faith. Sometimes your actions are very constructive, but I'm afraid not this time. Perhaps you would consider removing the personal attacks above? Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Dougweller]]

message: A day has passed in which I have spent considerable time trying to sort out what has happened, and have given opportunity for various parties to respond to my requests for information.  At this point i have to say, all I see is a massive abuse of administrative powers by user:Ice Cold Beer.  It is true that there is a content dispute at Ancient Egyptian race controversy and in my own opinion several users are clearly making disruptive edits.  But at least two of the banned users, user:AncientObserver and user:Wdford have sought out compromises and have strived to comply with our content and behavioral policies in their edits.  What I find most upsetting is the complete lack of due process.  I have seen no evidence, no edit-difs, provided to support banning these two users.  I asked Ice Cold Beer for evidence and was told to look at ANI and FTN.  I was not provided with specific links, but I searched and found the archived discussion at ANI, and FTN.  At neither place was any evidence provided to support a ban of Ancient Observer or Wdford.  At neither place was there a poll or even a discussion among mny administrators concerning banning Ancient Observer or Wdford.  In short, Ice Cold Beer has made a unilateral decision to ban these users, without any evidence or discussion.  I find it hard to believe that an ArbCom Parole is meant to deprive editors of the most basic and simple forms of due process.  I would like to see the bans rescinded.  Even here, Ice Cold Beer refuses to be held accountable for his actions.  He seems to believe that this matter should have been handled at ArbCom enforcement - yet, Ice Cold Beer never brought this up at Arbcom Enforcement.  Ice Cold Beer should be reprimanded for his mishandling of this case. If he believes he was enforcing an ArbCom decision, he should have opened up a case at ArbCom Enforcement, named the policies that were violated, and provided edit-difs.  As is, editors like Ancient Observer and Wdford have nothing to defend thmselves against, because they are being denounced by a rogue admin. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Second statement by [[user:Slrubenstein]]

message: I am inactive on current requests, but I felt I should comment here. More appropriate venues were suggested at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Banning and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#Admins vs contributors. Almost no real attempt has been made to take that advice or otherwise persue normal dispute resolution. (Slrubenstein's attempts to discuss the matter with ICB is one of the few and limited exceptions, as an example.) While there may or may not be a problem with the administrative actions taken here, the manner in which this is generally being persued is disruptive, only serving to further increase the drama. I recommend that if editors persist in rejecting sensible suggestions for resolution, while continuing to make noise and drama over perceived wrongs, that the behavior be treated like any other disruptive conduct. While I am sympathetic to Slrubenstein's concerns, as administrators are expected to be prepared and willing to justify their actions, I do take partial issue with his statement about "depriv[ing] editors of the most basic and simple forms of due process". He may certainly have a valid point, but the lack of "due process" in this situation has at least as much to do with failing to persue repeatedly suggested avenues of recourse as with any failing on the part of the acting administrator. The failure to accept and follow up on that advice is illustrative of a core issue in this topic area, as well as other problematic topic areas. If this was raised at WP:AE for review as suggested, with possible companion requests at WP:FTN and/or WP:NPOVN to clarify the content assertions that cut to the core of the issue, we wouldn't be here right now and this situation would be resolved or on the way to resolution. --Vassyana (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the most ridiculous and innaccurate statements I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The issues were raised on the respective admin's talk pages repeatedly by various editors. The issues were brought up at ANI where the editors were sent off to Arbcom. The issues were raised on the discussion page here. And now that numerous editors have taken the time to make statements and engage in good faith discussion with the arbitration committee, you ball them out for not jumping through the right bureaucratic hurdle in the right bureaucratic place? What a disgrace. It's no wonder so many people in the community are fed up with Arbcom's arrogance and insularity. If this isn't the right place why don't you help move it where it belongs? Aren't we a collaborative Wiki?  How many different places do these good faith editors have to be sent before they get some help. How ridiculous! And the cherry on top is your disgusting threat that further efforts to get resolution and redress will be considered disruptive. If this discussion isn't in the right place why don't you MOVE IT where it belongs. Believe it or not most good faith editors and contributors don't hang out at Arbcom all the time so they're not experts on navigating all your pages. Maybe try to be a little more editor friendly instead of taking such a nasty and unwarranted stance against editors who are already facing incompetent asdministrative abuse. Thanks so much. Further incivility and threats on from you after this pointer will be considered disruptive and treated accordingly. And if someone care to move this comment, I know they can move this whole discussion where it belongs too. Thanks in advance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved User:Vassyana 

message: Briefly, I strongly disagree with the manner and tone of CoM's response, and also feel that ANI and the clarificaiton talk page discussion clearly and repeatedly pointed to better venues. However, he does have a valid point in the spirit of . In that spirit, I will raise the matter for review at WP:AE, perma-linking to this request, the ANI thread, and other places where discussion has taken place. I will also cross-post an invitation to review the AE thread to WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN, to attact the attention of editors experienced with neutrality and fringe theory considerations. Additionally, I offer my assistance as an informal mediator, or to help acquire another mediator from MedCab or MedCom, to assist on the content side of things. If there is any other way that I can help move things forward constructively, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Vassyana (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Followup comment by User:Vassyana 

message: I won't reflect on what has happened in the past but instead propose a possible solution. For all of us involved, we should have two long term goals. Firstly, to produce a well written article. Secondly to establish a system of self regulation, in which the need for administrative intervention in the article is minimal, and the editors themselves do most of the policing for content that violates Wikipedia's policies. In other words, it would be ideal if this article was like any other good article, and that the article, in the long term, should lose its "special" status.
For this to occur, the editors have refrain from pov-pushing, original research and other poor editing behaviors and agree to monitor the article for such violations. Because if the established editors don't police the article, administrators are sure to intervene. 
I therefore propose that the banned users provide some form of assurance to the administrators about editing behavior. On the other hand, Ice Cold Beer should consider lifting the ban he imposed on them. This is a quick solution to the problem. It avoids the need for further escalation, additional bureaucracy and spamming of talk pages and noticeboards. Should this issue be escalated, say to the arbcom, the atmosphere is likely to become more unpleasant. Specifically, there is the possibility of administrators disagreeing with each other. If users agree to take responsibility for the article, then it is within Ice Cold Beer's power to avoid these unpleasantries.
Some of the banned users are new to Wikipedia, in terms of longevity or edit count and this is a new experience for them. I think that having been banned for a few days, they all have a better understanding of how to deal with controversial articles. If they are unbanned they are likely to be more cautious. In addition, bans can always be reimposed if editors violate Wikipedia's policies. I think its worth a try. 
Wapondaponda (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Muntuwandi

message: Finally, based on the block itself, Ice_Cold_Beer violated the terms of enforcement
Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans.
Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Panehesy 

message: Enforcement by block
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann#Article_probation
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase... 
You are banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page, per [1], for a period of six months for POV-pushing, adding unsourced content, and personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second statement by Panehesy 

message: Well Brad, if you're not sure, them just imagine how we feel. As it happens the policy on appealing against a ban by a lone admin is not so clear and user-friendly, so your guidance would be gratefuly received. May I request you to assist us by finding out to whom we should be appealing, and that you then cut-and-paste this issue and its existing comments into that forum, with due notification etc of change of address, and with due regard to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, so that the matter can progress efficiently and free of drama. Please? Wdford (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Dbachman and Dougweller had me blocked last year on the basis of "Afrocentricism" Before that I complained about him on Admin notice boards for some strange reason every notice was removed my on of his "friends". Dougweller How ironic, that you post here about good faith under a noninvolved user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_User:Dougweller.  You also posted this [] About Panhesy comment on some one elses page. Is that asumming good faith? The truth is User:Dougweller you have left many comments about other users edits to  User:Dbachmann and most of it is relates to black people and Egypt. Just like during the time Dbachman decided to remove most of the information on this page Black_(hieroglyphic_'km')with no explanations and changed the name.  Starting with this edit on June 10, 2009 4 other edit followed one on top of the other all with no explanations and because of it, an edit war erupted. You went and left Dbachman this message asking him to make your reverts for you because you didn’t want to violate 3RR []. These people are not even half of the people how have been blocked wrongfully by these gang of administrators.  I took a look at your block logs and just recently you blocked this editor User_talk:Bottracker on false accusations  all because another editor User:Polly asked you to do so when he left this message on your talk page claiming there were issues concerning the editors images and that he did not want the editor to be able to upload images again [] you left a message telling Polly that you have given the editor a warning because you have to {]. And in a few minute after that warning you blocked the editor indefinitely from ever editing on Wikipedia based on nothing other than a request to do so.  Some one just leaves a message on their friends page and their friend do their dirty work for them and hide under the fact that he or she is an administrator. The administrator abuse on Wikipedia by Dbachman and his “friends” and the cry of afrocentricism for every thing have gone one long enough something needs to be done. Greyyschwartz (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Greyyschwartz 

message: *I'm not sure whether this belongs here for review by the arbitrators, or in the enforcement section to seek a consensus of the admins who are active on AE. I'm not trying to be a procedural pain-in-the-neck here, but it's just happenstance that the sanction was levied by an administrator directly and review was sought here, rather than the issue having been raised through a request on AE, in which case comments would have gone there. What do people think is the most efficient, drama-free way to address this type of issue? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: :Proposed. More housekeeping, a while back the Committee tried to clean up case names such that no active DS provision was in a case named after an individual editor.  This one, seems to have been overlooked in that effort. Courcelles 12:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion by arbitrators