Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Andajara120000 (talk) at 01:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Andajara120000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Aua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• dougweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• wdford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• yalens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EyeTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=589380955&oldid=589380885
• Diff. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wdford&diff=589381141&oldid=589365826
• Diff. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aua&diff=589381302&oldid=589365757
• Diff. 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yalens&diff=589381554&oldid=589368260
• Diff. 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=589382230&oldid=589365906
• Diff. 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EyeTruth&diff=589382449&oldid=589365961

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy.2C_DNA_history_of_Egypt.2C_Black_Egyptian_Hypothesis.2C_Population_history_of_Egypt-5_to_6_years_of_editor_proliferation_of_articles.2C_WP:Ownership_and_POV_pushing
• Link 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy.2C_DNA_history_of_Egypt.2C_Black_Egyptian_Hypothesis.2C_Population_history_of_Egypt-5_to_6_years_of_editor_proliferation_of_articles.2C_WP:Ownership_and_POV_pushing

Statement by Andajara120000

Response to Request by Roger Davies:

(1) Current problems-dating earliest back one year "Locking" of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt, Population history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis and other related articles by a small group of editors towards one point of view over the years by use of various topics, see below list of misconduct per user only going back one year

(2) Specific evidence of current misconduct for each of the named parties

(3) Explanation why no other forum can help I have been told to come to the Arbitration Committee from other forums for these behavorial issues. The conduct will not stop due to intransigent nature of POV-pushing by these highly experienced and sophisticated editors without drastic and lasting action that can be applied by Arbitration Committee.

Response to Query by Thryduulf:Whatever can stop the virtual lockdown of these articles from Wikipedia collaboration by any editors outside their group.

Original statement:There seems to be a small group of editors collectively working together to control a selection of articles regarding the race of the Ancient Egyptians and using various intimidation and other tactics that violate the spirit of Wikipedia's collaborative approach. This has been going on for 5-6 years and many editors have complained over the years on DRN, AN and ANI noticeboards about a pattern of behavior. I had compiled some evidence in the AN and ANI cases but there is even still more not yet compiled.

Okay I added a bit more following Newyorkbrad's comment:Yes, the problem is that there is a group of about 4-6 editors noted above who seem to have been working since 2008 to block any changes to a group of articles about ancient Egyptian race, including Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt, Population history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis and others described in the evidence in previous AN and ANI attempts that go against their POV. There have been numerous AN and ANI attempts by various editors over the years to demonstrate this pattern of behavior but these editors have not been able to stay the course over the 5-6 years in checking this behavior. Conspiracy has been alleged by other editors as well and extensive evidence of that has been presented in the AN and ANI requests I have linked above. There is more evidence available as well if this topic is accepted for arbitration.

Topic bans and user bans have been applied to members of this group yet the behavior continues. Truly collaborative editing of this collection of articles has been seriously threatened by these failures to follow the spirit of Wikipedia collaboration. I elaborated in the AN and ANIs, I did not elaborate more here because I believed there was a word limit. A topic ban, user ban, and general investigation of this conduct and its affect on Wikipedia collaboration on these articles over the years is needed. Arbitration will allow this conduct to be checked once and for all--how many users have to be driven off Wikipedia due to the success of this cadre of editors in pushing their POV, intimidating editors, successfully styming editing of these articles, helping each other and collaborating with each other and out-maneuvering and out-gaming the Wikipedia system? Arbitration can finally check this behavior once and for all. Many of the editors who have been driven off have not had the time to collect evidence of this pattern of conduct and to be heard. Some of the extensive evidence is in the AN request link above and there is still much more to be presented if this case is fully considered and heard.

Response to Dougweller:A quick glance at the talk pages of the cited pages will demonstrate the issues argued here. The creation of these pages have been used to exhaust editors-parallel discussions of similar issues are being conducted on all four talk pages. Editors are attempting to game the system by discussing and encouraging lines of arguments on certain talk pages that they know will later be disputed and deleted by them and their cadre of editors. This is a systemic conduct issue. For example, just now on Black Egyptian hypothesis, for example, Dougweller [LATER EDITOR NOTE BY ANDAJARA:ACTUALLY IT WAS WDFORD AS DIFF SHOWS, CHANGE WAS UNSIGNED AND FOLLOWED FROM DOUGWELLER'S CHANGES, SEE BELOW SORRY] has proposed we use DNA tribes to replace the peer-reviewed studies regarding the E1b1a claim while on the other talk pages he has precisely deleted the reference he is now attempting to replace the two peer-reviewed studies as unreliable. As I have been an editor on each of the talk pages I have been able to catch this, but other editors may not have been aware of such tactics. Further, the editors are characterizing confusion over two peer-reviewed studies over and over again on these talk pages, exhausting editors due to this proliferation of articles created by them for this particular purpose. Further, issues are stalled for years and then when changes are attempted a lack of consensus is cited: at Black Egyptian Hypothesis, attempts to include photographs of Ancient Egyptian art and sculpture have been stalled for over a year while the editor refused to engage him on the talk page with his request-when the editor then attempts to include pictures in the articles one year after a lack of any discussion by other editors, he is stalled for a lack of consensus.

These and other tactics showing a lack of good faith and systematic multiple behavioral issues of editor misconduct. Editors faced with this issue have again and again noted how this kind of conduct will not stop without drastic action- and not surprisingly it has not stopped-from 2008 to today 2014 it continues.

Additional response to Dougweller regarding replacing peer-reviewed studies with DNA tribes as source, which same group of editors had challenged on related talk pages (showing their plan to later delete the section they are drafting as a proposal for lack of reliability): I had assumed it was dougweller as the comment had been unsigned and seemed to continue from dougweller's comment, but from this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Egyptian_Hypothesis&diff=589435276&oldid=589424143 it seems to have been Wdford who did that (see references 27 and 28 on the page).

Additional response regarding the "DECEMBER 2013 FILED BY NUBIA123 AGAINST DOUGWELLER ET. Al. Alleging Conspiracy": Yes, the user was later disciplined, and I was still working on that section when the AN was collapsed, but the use of the tactics shown here still stand.

Response to Statement by Wdford:

First, I will just like to note his failure to specifically respond to the pattern of conduct allegations. Some highlighting of the pattern of conduct noted by other editors that is severely crippling the collaborative process on Wikipedia, also see evidence in AN and above:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DNA_history_of_Egypt#How_could_everyone_miss_this_for_so_long.3F: "17 July 2009, 18:46, Mathilda37 made a bunch of edits unsupported by literature to the Population history of Egypt page. Slowly most of them were removed but one of it stayed and got carried on to this article. I do find it very odd that users who edited that page shortly after the edit by Mathilda37 actually let those edits stay or somehow didn't see them.This sentence, originally by Mathilda37, is not supported by the reference cited..."The few successful attempts to extract Ancient DNA from Ancient Egyptian remains have yielded mainly Eurasian DNA types from the Dakleh Oasis cemetery site (from Southern Egypt), and they show a considerable increase in the amount of Sub Saharan mitchondrial DNA only over the past 2,000 years, suggesting that within this timeframe there was more migration from Sub-Saharan Africa to the Nile Valley..." Should it be fixed or not? Wdford, Dougweller and other major editors here, I need your opinions. If there is no objection, then I guess it has to be fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)"
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive222: The other editors will not allow any changes to the article and aren't discussing their reasoning on the Talk page...my changes were undone by Aua without any discussion on the Talk page during the same time period in question. Why is there no edit warring notice for Aua, as well? Rod (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (to DougWeller)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy:"I've attempted to logically discuss this issue of my contributions with you two on the talk page, but in every instance both of you state your opinions and ignore my response. From there with your lack of a response continued to revert my edits using bullying tactics with claims of a 2 to 1 consensus. That shows in unwillingness on you all's part to compromise.SirShawn (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)"" (to Dougweller and Wdford)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive_editing_by_Wdford_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy
• Ah, so people who continually abuse their editing privileges--note, for example, your topicban--and waste other peoples' time... What it boils down to is a simple question: are we attempting to build a relatively reliable encyclopedia here, or not? If the answer is yes, then the only logical action that follows is to terminate...POV-pushing nonsense with extreme prejudice." → ROUX ₪ 29 July 2009
• However,Wdford, whom you might know from the preceding discussion, vehemently opposed this one sentence, but I still can't figure out what his editorial argument for his opposition is, actually. He is saying that this is an "inappropriate POV statement" diff, but actually all I did was to refer to one of the best non-partisan sources I could find. The statement was (in a slightly different form) previously present in the article and simply flagged with 'citation needed', before Wdford removed all flagged statements from the article. diff...In any case, I can't work at the article under these conditions....That only leaves the question who the editor with the fringe POV is....All I did was look up what the reliable sources, which I had previously identified, have to say...From what he has written on the talk page, I wouldn't even know that Wdford understands the difference between an editors POV and that, what reliable sources have to say, and I suspect that I could discuss this issue for about a month and Wdford still wouldn't understand.....So unless I get an affirmation that articles on Wikipedia should be based in reliable sources (and not on individual editor's pov), I will simply retreat from the article. For already in the my first comment on my edit I made clear that this sentence was based on a reliable source, and Wdford can't possibly intent to write an article based on reliable sources when he argues against that sentence by calling it a "blatantly Afrocentric opening sentence". diff He should know that the historian I've quoted is not an Afrocentrist; he should at least have stopped to revert when I brought a quote from another historian, Stephen Howe, to whom he later himself referred. As far as reliable sources go, I don't need to put up with this, and I will not....He is making it impossible for me to edit the article, and he is effectively driving me off Wikipedia. Why would I spent about 6-8 hours fixing the structure of a controversial article when he can come along and simply wreck it up again? And since this is already the third article where there is a problem, this is certainly not a contend issue, but a problem with the editor. An administrator could have fixed the issue a few months ago, if he simply had restored the topic ban against Wdford...Wdford is avoiding a discussion of the actual content issue, so I have to repeat and explain my view on that again and again Zara1709 8-9 August 2009 and 5 November 2009

Response to Yalens: The tactics used to drive out editors and ensure a certain view in these articles must be scrutinized: As Zara1709 stated:"I wouldn't even know that [the editor] understands the difference between an editors POV and...what reliable sources have to say"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554Disruptive_editing_by_Wdford_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy).To show this pattern of POV conduct, see from June 2012 by SirShawn when involved with DougWeller and Wdford at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy , where he also pointed out an incident similar to that referenced above at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DNA_history_of_Egypt#How_could_everyone_miss_this_for_so_long.3F: where certain completely inaccurate (as in not even in the source)information is passed over in silence in the article by this cadre of editors while inclusion of other well-sourced information from Britannica, Oxford Encyclopedia, National Geographic, is battled by these editors:

"Let me first start off by saying that every single contribution that I have made to that article are as mainstream and contemporary as it gets...I have added in the official statements of the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt", "The Encyclopedia of Archaeology of ancient Egypt", University of Manchester, "National Geographic" (which in itself cites a dozen scholars for their statements), and the Encyclopedia Britannica. The issues that several posters are having is that every one of these modern authorities have pretty much plainly come out in the support of the "black African" theory in regards to ancient Egypt. Their rejection of these sources is clearly a reflection of their own biased....Interestingly enough another issue with the article is that a blatant lie...that modern Egyptians are "90%" genetically identical to ancient Egyptians is cited by a source that does not state it anywhere in the link. This claim prior to my contributions was posted THREE TIMES throughout the article (clearly a POV). Now why should that original research be repeated throughout the article, yet the... statements...of the Fitzwilliam, Oxford, Manchester, Britannica ect be excluded? ...Another issue is that they are saying that my sources are basically biased to support my POV. Well is it at all possible that one particular POV is well...where the facts lay in regards to this issue? I mean if not then why not simply cite another modern institute of the same academic integrity...If it's really that much of a dispute amongst modern scholars shouldn't it be easy to cite other recent views, rather than censor the one side...Clearly there are emotional attachments to this issue, and imo anyone who wishes to censor any of those top notch sources should not be taken seriously.

...(WDford)...argue[s] that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded.

As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical...They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable."

Comment by Beyond My Ken

My understanding is that there are multiple dispute resolution threads about this other than the ones on the AN boards listed above, and these should be added to the list by Andajara120000. Of the two threads linked above, Black Kite closed the one at AN/I - after some amount of discussion - to be sent back to DRN, and the one at AN was closed by me (NAC) - before discussion could begin - as essentially a duplication of the just closed AN/I report. It was I who advised Andajara120000 to come here if she really was convinced that this was a behavioral issue, but I also expressed the strong opinion that it was essentially a content dispute. So far I've seen nothing to change my mind about that, and if that remains the case, the Committee should, of course, reject the case as outside its remit. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dougweller

My first interaction with the editor bringing this here was when I gave them a 3RR warning on the 22nd of December, followed a few hours later by some comments, a request for help, and thanks regarding some editing in other articles relating to Africa. A considerable amount of the dispute that this editor is having with other editors revolves around sources for DNA claims. At first this was about the use of a private company called DNATribes which had been rejected at RSN a year ago.[1] The editor didn't accept this and started a new discussion there on the 23rd of December.[2]

He calls editors "brothers of faith" persumably because in 2009 an editor posted to User talk:Wdford#Wikiculture and dealing with neutral "experts" using that phrase and posting some details from User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war (Andajara wrote in his ANI report "The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith." but it wasn't Wdford who posted that). Andajara wrote at ANI that "This whole "brothers of the faith" issue chills me to the core" - thinner skinned editors than I am might find Andajara's actions chilling and disruptive.

It isn't just the editors at these four articles who are being accused of malfeasance on Wikipedia. Accusations of stalking and vandalism were made at Talk:Middle Africa and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Southeast Africa, Middle Africa, Islands of Africa.

There is no cabal, no conspiracy, no "brothers in faith". There have been editors with the pov that Egyptians are Black and others who disagree(I can't remember any who actually think Egyptians are white, most of us are simply not happy with pigeon-holing Egyptians into a racial category and some at least of us see race as a social construct). Whether there has been disruptive editing (including edits to talk pages, AN, etc) that are covered by the article probation that says "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages." is something that might best be discussed elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the recent statement by Λuα below. Given the battlefield mentality and continued behavior of this editor not just on these articles but elsewhere, I'm pessimistic about the possibility that he/she will learn how to work constructively on any article within our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein - these articles are not easy places to work and I try to avoid them, but generally the editors there manage (with some hiccups). This is the most serious problem these articles have faced for a long time, probably because we have a new editor who doesn't understand how we work and is not willing to show good faith and listen. I agree that these articles should be covered by standard discretionary sanctions as [{User:Thryduulf]] has proposed. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

I'm uninvolved although I did comment on the ANI that the conspiracy claims were vague and unsupported by diffs. I think it would be helpful if User:wdford commented here. At any rate, last night I looked into the most recent December discussion which related in part to the last January RSN discussion. What I see there is the conclusions of the DNA testing company now being allegedly supported by two peer reviewed articles, however no Wikipedia user discussion has been able to yet confirm that those sources in fact support the DNA testing company's conclusions. Are users trying to block RS evidence of sub-saharan ancestry? I don't know. What is fringe, and what is not? I do not know. Why are there are so many articles, seemingly on the same or closely similar subject? I don't know. Does resolution of these perhaps related questions suffer from an overall editorial vacuum of diffuse forums? Probably. It seems guidance to the complainant is needed, but I am having difficulty faulting him/her for being frustrated by the seeming multiple messages of 'don't discuss that here - go elsewhere.' Although the complainant has seemingly charged into too many forums at once, and while that may also be a sign of frustration, it was not going to lead to resolution. Perhaps, the complainant is acting by mistake, in understanding sources and use of sources, perhaps the opponents are acting by mistake. That is something the complainant needs to consider (before alleging conspiracy) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FYI, someone at ANI suggested reading this for background on the off-site controversy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading the history correctly, the articles on the topic have proliferated since the 2008 case. The topic itself is a swirling melange of debates (eg. to have a "history of the crontroversy" article and a "modern scholarship" article, when both historical debates and modern scholarship discuss Heroditus is just going to lead to continuing editorial issues). At any rate, broaden the sanctions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aua

I wasn't going to entertain Andajara120000 here, because responding will lend an air of legitimacy to an otherwise off-the-wall pattern of behavior. However, I think some good can come from this, so I'll be brief:
What's happening in a nutshell: Andajara120000 has been pushing hard for a pro-black theory of Egyptians. They have often run against other editors because of their outlandish claims, which are either unsupported by RS or come from a less-than-stellar understanding of genetics and scientific studies. As someone in the health field, I, too, find some genetics difficult at times, so I wouldn't fault them for that. Even on Andajara120000's old account, their pattern of behavior has brought them into conflict with many other editors, including on topics of genetics as well. What I would fault them for is three things:

• An unrelenting POV-pushing,
• Wasting everybody's time with forumshopping and baseless complaints and attacks,
• An exceptional sense of paranoia! Please, if there is anything you'd do, read Andajara120000's previous AN complaint and the evidence they collected. In particular, read through a sample of talkpage evidence they had. At one point, they even accused admins of being part of our cadre/brothers-of-the-faith.

Suggested solution: while banning Andajara120000 is completely reasonable given the disruption they have managed to single-handedly wreak on multiple forums/articles/editors, I think a topicban is probably better.

In my over 7 years here on Wiki, I have been accused of many, many things. But Andajara120000's story is quite something else.

If this weren't such a serious waste of everyone's time, it'd have been hilarious to read.
Yours faithfully.
Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind:

Initially, I thought Andajara was an overenthusiastic, albeit misguided, contributor. Over time, I have come to recognize Andajara as an extremely disruptive editor whose ability (and apparently abundant free time combined with an internet access) has allowed them to take multiple articles hostage, trash everyone in their way, and insert a strong and factually inaccurate POV into multiple articles, all while -mind you- acting as the victim. They have single-handedly paralyzed many editors, and projects. The extent of the damage, underestimated but approximated, by the fact they have 3,665 in less than a month, more than 75% of which were mainspace edits (talk about consensus building!). This doesn't count a previous account, which made close to 150 edits in one day. Besides the many, many forums below, Andajara managed to spam many talkpages. In the past 24 hours alone, Andajara was reverted multiple times, including by editors not involved at all here.

I have realized that Andajara is not here to compromise or talk, but to force their own viewpoints and bulldoze anyone in the way.

This is NOT an ArbCom issue, obviously, but swift action needs to be taken by an uninvolved admin. Could someone please do something about this? The longer it takes, the harder it is to repair the damage.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wdford

I have been falsely accused of being part of a conspiracy to keep a certain POV from being pushed in a range of related articles. I reject that with contempt. I believe I have worked constructively and within the rules to improve articles, along with other editors, and that co-incidentally this has from time to time resulted in moderating and/or deleting POV. Obviously this annoys the POV-pushers, one of whom is now resorting to politics to get their way.

We did not create a proliferation of articles to exhaust POV-pushers, this was done under WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:SPINOFF because of size limits and to create focused articles to which other articles could be blue-linked, precisely so as to avoid duplication of material across multiple articles. Several editors have worked tirelessly over several years to achieve and maintain neutrality and balance at these articles, largely with success until just recently. This intention is now being undone by POV-pushers who cut-and-paste the same material into all the related articles, repeatedly and remorselessly in an apparent attempt to wear down the admins who are trying to manage the problem.

Much of this accusation against me of misconduct relates to a case four years ago, when an experienced editor with ownership issues pursued a long campaign over multiple articles to get me out of her way. She was briefly supported by an admin who banned me (and several others) on the basis of her accusations, but my ban was overturned on appeal as it was ruled to have been inappropriate. Re the more recent “evidence” offered by Andajara120000, I believe that in all cases those edits were appropriate and were supported by solid references. Where my edits were challenged by other editors I have tried hard to achieve consensus, but some editors are adding material that is inappropriate or just downright misleading, and this particular editor has an unusually aggressive approach to pushing her POV. She appeared out of nowhere one month ago and has already made 3700 edits, many of them demanding interventions, arbitrations and the banning of editors who disagree with her POV and her methods.

In conclusion, I feel I have tried very hard to improve the article under trying circumstances, and I have been falsely accused by a frustrated POV-pusher who has thus far failed to get her way.Wdford (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yalens

When I first ran into the Ancient Egyptian race controversy page, it was a total mess. I don't claim to know how it got that way, being too lazy/busy to read all the history. At various points, it stated or implied that all indigenous peoples to Africa were "black" (which in itself is a societal construct that one can't exactly prove scientifically, but one which would seem to imply that non-"black" natives, such as Berbers, simply don't exist), that Southern Indians were also "black", that Colchis (a kingdom in western Georgia, the Georgia of the Caucasus) was inhabited by "blacks"; it featured pictures of Nubians mislabeled as Egyptians, insinuated that everyone who doesn't believe this is part of some racist conspiracy, and so on. Add to that the sourcing issues, SYTNH issues, and the frequent cherrypicking of sentences, pictures and so on from sources that don't necessarily support their POV you see described above. I didn't want any wikipedia page looking like a POV rant/blog post, so I tried to help fix it. I had thought I'd just help clean it up that one time, but it seems I get dragged back to the page now and then.

Having come to this page relatively recently, I can't comment on stuff that happened in, say, 2009, as I see mentioned above in this case. I can say this, however. The editors who support these theories have varied personalities (though I have more or less seen one case of very likely socking), but a lot of them, Andajara especially, seem to believe in some conspiracy to repress their viewpoint on wikipedia. First of all, this constitutes a battlefield mentality, which people are supposed to set aside if they want to constructively negotiate and edit pages. Second of all, its unfair and untrue. Pretty much all of us engage in dialogue and try to compromise (as one can see from the talk page), though sometimes it can be difficult when the other party is interested in nothing more than making the page reflect their viewpoint as much as possible rather than coming to an agreement that matches wikipedia's policies... But, as I'm sure you can see, we still try. --Yalens (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to accusations by Andajara: Most of these accusations seriously misrepresent my actions on the page, labeling them as things which they are not, or withholding significant information about the context of the edit. Some examples:

1) For this edit ([[3]]), Andajara accuses me of "deletion of peer-reviewed DNA study with misleading edit summary". I fail to see how my edit summary ("Rams. III' haplotype shouldn't be discussed in Tutankhamun's section...") was misleading. The DNA study was about Ramses III, and the section was about Tutankhamun, so of course it was totally off-topic and as such I removed it. Andajara neglected to mention this, and that comes off as quite manipulative to me. There is utterly nothing misleading about my edit summary.

2) For this edit ([[4]]), Andajara accuses me of "deletion of reliable sourced material" without even giving a nod to my very thoroughly explained reasons for doing so. I wasn't merely trying to suppress information as (s)he suggests, but instead I was trying to adhere to Wikipedia standards and philosophies, as explained here.--Yalens (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3) For this edit ([[5]]) Andajara accuses me of deleting sourced material. That's ridiculous, all I did was change the phrase "southern African Sub-Saharan cultures" to "Sub-Saharan cultures" because it was more or less redundant. And in fact, the edit was actually a form of compromise, as the person who originally deleted it was an IP editor who actually supported the black hypothesis! Oh, the irony.

I could continue explaining why each and every one of these accusations is misrepresentative or absurd in its own way, but I think these should give you a pretty good summary. You can find reasonable explanations for basically all my edits if you look at the edit summaries I made and, better yet, the talk page. --Yalens (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

Let me start by saying I have never even viewed any of the articles (or even seen the OP's name) until going through this Mess-o-potamia. I urge ArbComm to accept this - keeping most strongly in mind the behaviour of the OP. Wikipedia's key component is WP:CONSENSUS - and we have a situation that for years when the OP has not gained traction for their changes, they have filibustered, attacked, demeaned, forum-shopped and otherwise a) kept a series of articles hostage, and b) driven others away from the articles. This is unacceptable behaviour, and it's quite clear that both the project and its editors require formalized protection ES&L 12:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved DRN volunteer Guy Macon

In the last few days, Andajara120000 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user) has filed four cases at WP:DRN:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 83#Black people (12:25, 3 January)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Black Egyptian Hypothesis (05:32, 5 January)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Population history of Egypt (17:18, 5 January)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#DNA history of Egypt (00:20, 7 January)

In addition, Andajara120000 filed cases/reports on the same or closely-related issues at the following venues:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 162#DNA Tribes Used As Supporting Source To Two Peer-Reviewed Studies Regarding Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, DNA History of Egypt, Population History of Egypt (10:16, 23 December)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Southeast Africa, Middle Africa, Islands of Africa (02:43, 1 January 2014)

Talk:Middle Africa#RFC-Does Middle Africa Deserve Its Own Article? (02:52, 1 January)

Talk:Central east Africa#RFC-Does Southeast Africa deserve full article coverage or just a list of the countries in the region due to its inconsequential nature? (02:58, 1 January 2014)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Black Egyptian Hypothesis (00:14, 5 January)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#DNA Tribes in Population history of Egypt Article-WITHDRAWN-I WISH TO PROCEED WITH AN/ANI (06:18, 5 January)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Population history of Egypt-5 to 6 years of editor proliferation of articles, WP:Ownership and POV pushing (18:06, 5 January)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ancient Egypt (this page) (02:15, 6 January)

...and requested assistance on these user talk pages:

User talk:DrLewisphd#December 27 (05:19, 27 December)

User talk:Black Kite#Noticeboard Ancient Egyptian (23:22, 5 January)

User talk:Guy Macon/Archive 3#Ancient Egyptian Controversy-ANI closed as should be in DRN, but DRN closed-where to go? (23:33, 5 January)

User talk:Alanscottwalker#Ancient Egyptian ANI (23:34, 5 January)

User talk:Keithbob#Ancient Egyptian ANI (23:36, 5 January)

User warned about forum shopping:

User talk:Andajara120000#Forum shopping (23:59, 5 January)

Cases/reports filed by other editors on the same or closely-related issues:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#DNA Tribes, a private genetics company, being used as a source (15:28, 27 January)

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#POV synthesis on genetics being added to several articles (14:06, 7 January)

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Sandstein

This is just to remind editors that, as mentioned by arbitrators below, according to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation administrators can already react to disruptive edits on the articles Ancient Egyptian race controversy and Afrocentrism by issuing article bans. Such sanctions can be requested by any editor by making an enforcement request at WP:AE.

If there are also recurring conduct problems on related articles such as Black Egyptian hypothesis, DNA history of Egypt, etc (why do we even need that many articles about this?), then interested editors can petition the Committee at WP:ARCA to expand the scope of the remedy, possibly to encompass the whole topic. On that basis, a full case is probably not the best way to go about this now.  Sandstein  16:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query by Thryduulf

Article probation is an out of favour remedy for the committee to pass these days. That it hasn't been used in this circumstance makes me wonder whether the editors active on the article think replacing it with standard discretionary sanctions (something the committee could do by motion) would be of any benefit? Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

I agree with User:Floquenbeam that a motion to place this topic under discretionary sanctions would be worthwhile. While the article probation has value, it is an unfamiliar remedy to many admins. While the original case, WP:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann is getting old (January 2008), the basic issues seem to have a lot in common with what we see here. Unless the committee thinks that a complete revisit of the entire topic is needed, a motion to allow WP:AC/DS would permit AE to apply the usual standards to conduct on this topic. For an example of how this could make a difference, article probation doesn't prevent sanctioned editors from participating in AfDs or in Wikipedia-space discussions on the topic where they have trouble editing neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Bishonen: OP blocked

I have blocked Andajara120000 indefinitely for long-time disruption of Ancient Egypt-related articles as well as egregious forum shopping, see Guy Macon's list. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by outside editor Robert McClenon

This case bears annoying resemblances to the last case requested filed on gun control. In both cases, the filing party and other editors with similar opinions added material to an article or articles that had no consensus and that was questionable in terms of Wikipedia policies, being considered fringe by the mainstream academic community. The material was removed. The filing party and other editors, in what can be viewed as attempted ownership of the article(s), treated the removal of the questionable material as censorship, and engaged in forum shopping in order to force the restoration of the questionable material (and possibly to bully other editors into leaving the questionable material in the article). In both cases, after noticeboard threads did not achieve the desired result, an ArbCom case request was filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the recommendation that the ArbCom should convert the old article probation remedy to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Clerk note: I corrected a link in the request to fix the userlink pointing to EyeTruth (capitalization issues). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a reminder to all parties to keep requests concise, and to stay within the word count limits. --Rschen7754 04:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The motion has passed, though we are waiting for the remaining arbitrators to have a chance to comment. --Rschen7754 11:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/10/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• To the filing party: I know this topic has a long history of wiki-controversy, and appreciate the links, but I think you're going to have to explain what the problem is and how you think arbitration will help in greater detail before we can evaluate your request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you've overcompensated. We have enough background from the filing party (although breaking some of it up into paragraphs so we can read it more easily would not go amiss). Awaiting a couple of additional statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I see no evidence of significant user misconduct issues, except possibly on the part of Andajara120000 himself, and those can likely be addressed short of an arbitration case. The fact that other editors disagree with one editor's reading of the sources or how to weight them does not suggest misconduct. See also Beeblebrox's comment below (the relevant old case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article_probation). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Still waiting on statements by several key participants. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline I don't see a conspiracy, and I don't see substantial misconduct on the part of those named by Andajara. I would like to remind the filing party to abide by consensus. While I think there are major issues at play regarding Andajara's conduct, I can't bring myself to support a full case. Also, I would note that if this continues to escalate, it may be appropriate for the probation to be applied. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would be very reluctant to accept any case on the basis of the current (sprawling) request. In an attempt to clearly identify the issues/parties, may I ask Andajara120000 to please review his statement and reduce from its current 4,000+ words. Ideally, I'd like to see: (i) something demonstrating current problems, preferably going back no more than a year; (ii) examples of specific misconduct for each of the named parties; and (iii) an explanation why no other forum can help. Thanks in advance,  Roger Davies ^talk 03:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would note that according to a notice at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy that article is already subject to ArbCom-imposed probation and any uninvolved admin may ban any user found to be editing disruptively. This mechanism does not appear to have been used in about four years, but it is still in place, presumably so that if a particular editor is acting disruptively it does not require the full committee to investigate it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline I don't think this merits a full case, the motion below should be enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. Once broader discretionary sanctions are in place for this topic, the community should be able to sort the problem out quickly. If someone with stronger Arb-fu doesn't beat me to it, I will figure out how to post a motion and propose DS for this topic area (replacing the current article probation) later this afternoon.. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per notes brought up by Guy Macon (talk · contribs). I also note that the filing party, Andajara120000 (talk · contribs), has since been indefinitely blocked for disruption. LFaraone 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline and deal with by motion. T. Canens (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I think that discretionary sanctions will be sufficient to address this issue. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, I believe the below motion will be sufficient to address any remaining issues. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline in favour of resolving by motion as below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Discretionary sanctions for Ancient Egyptian race controversy

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

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

Support

1. As proposer. I'm a virgin as far as proposing motions is concerned, so any tweaks to formatting or wording by those more experienced are welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. I've added "and related articles" as the associated list that Guy Macon mentions above is quite long. Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I've tweaked "related articles" to "associated articles" to avoid the close proximity of relating and relaed,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. This appears to be a sufficient remedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. With the understanding that upon passing the motion, the case request is declined. The wording of the motion is good. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. This seems to be logical and adequate. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. This would do well to help nip further issues in the bud. LFaraone 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. I think this will suffice in place of a full case. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. I think this is sufficient to handle the problems here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]