Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  and regret taking part in this time-wasting RfC. --Folantin (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Question for Folantin

message: 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  and regret taking part in this time-wasting RfC. --Folantin (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Response from Folantin

message: 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)
replies: text: I was wondering that too. futurebird (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2) This should have been number 3 Muntuwandi (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the numbering should be fixed, yes. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who moved it back?? futurebird (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: doh! I only moved the talk page before. I've fixed that.futurebird (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did the previous RfC end? 

message: Should we fix the numbering so it is clear that this is the third time? futurebird (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the numbering should be fixed, yes. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who moved it back?? futurebird (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: ---
:::::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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 and User: -The Bold Guy- 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. -- User:Moreschi  
Simply put, that's just a crock.  deeceevoice (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding in general on systemic bias and in particular

message: Justforasecond an active user? The user page says that he/she is "retired" ? futurebird (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay. thanks. futurebird (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justforasecond: R E T I R E D?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problem