Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motion to add User:Deeceevoice to the case

1) I request that Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) be added to the list of parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe that User:Deeceevoice may be interested in being listed as a party; however I have a problem forcing this on her if she doesn't wish it.--Ramdrake 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. User:Deeceevoice was a participant in the discussions at Talk:Afrocentrism and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann_3, as well as a related discussion archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive332; at the RfC, she's been calling for Dbachmann to be desysopped. She's clearly part of the dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Ramdrake: I believe she's expressed a willingness or desire to be a party, but she's not listed in the case yet: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann#Involved_parties. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I believe she intends to participate, and well she should given her comments in the recent RFC. Ovadyah 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have expressed a wish that she be included. The first "Accept" vote by an arbitrator (Kirill) backs this. --Folantin 13:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is now moot, since she's been added as a party at Kirill's request. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to add User:Bakasuprman to the case

2) I request that Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) be added to the list of parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think Bakasuprman's contribution significantly changed the course of this request. It certainly wasn't a factor in the decision to bring thist to arbitration. Also, the matters brought by Bakasuprman are considerably older and somewhat different in nature than those raised in the rest of the request. Thus, I think it isn't appropriate to include Bakasuprman as a party to this arbitration, unless he/she expressly desires to be part of it.--Ramdrake 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Bakasuprman wasn't involved in the discussions at Talk:Afrocentrism, but he made a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann_3 that significantly altered the tone of the proceedings; without it, we probably wouldn't have this arbitration case. In addition, the statement is so outrageous that I cannot believe it was offered in good faith. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When evaluating whether Bakasuprman's statement changed the tone and course of the RfC, please take a look at this endorsement from Deeceevoice--it sure looks like a diff contained in Bakasuprman's statement caused her to call for Dbachmann's de-sysopping. Also, please note that several users who gave statements in the request for arbitration thought that Bakasuprman should be added to the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. He was one of the major instigators of the incivility in the RFC, and his actions should be called into account accordingly. Ovadyah 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakaman commented on a user RfC, which is well within his rights. Beyond that he doesnt appear to be involved in any of this 'afrocentrism' mess. This mess is entirely dab's own and that of others who are directly involved. Attempting to make unsuspecting bystanders party to an arbcom is silly. Sarvagnya 06:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After that RfC, he's definitely involved in this whether he likes it or not. Several editors have expressed the wish that he be included. --Folantin 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now moot, since he's been added as a party at Kirill Lokshin's request. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to add User:Folantin as an active party to this arbitration

3) I suggest User:Folantin be added as an active party to this arbitration

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

User:Folantin seems to insist that anyone having had a voice in the RfC be nominated as an active party. If such is the case, he shouldn't object to being named himself as a party. Furthermore, his adding his comment in the commetn by parties section seems to indicate he implicitly recognizes himself as an involved party.--Ramdrake 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I am withdrawing the suggestion as it is ill-advised, on second thought.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is a WP:POINT violation by Ramdrake. "Folantin seems to insist that anyone having had a voice in the RfC be nominated as an active party". Absolute and demonstrable nonsense. Of the many participants in the RfC, I (and other users) have only specified that two users with a long-term history of problems be added to the ArbCom, namely Bakasuprman and Deeceevoice (plus the now banned sock puppet account Xyzisequation) [1]. Stop trying to game the system. NB: I am unclear what is considered a "party" here. I believe I am only semi-involved in this case (i.e. I have presented evidence). --Folantin 14:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, a party is someone who wants to present evidence and maybe be able to have a voice in the discussion of discipline. For what it's worth, I added myself as a participant earlier because I wanted to be able to at least deposit evidence and maybe express an opinion. I find Ramdrake's slightly prejudicial statement above of questionable usefulness, but suggest that if s/he so desire Folantin add his/her name. If ArbCom wants to sanction someone, they could do it anyway, but I get the impression that they don't consider you a likely candidate for disciplinary measures, unless you really screw up in the presentation of evidence or opinion. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to consider how and why the 1-year block happned

Since Deeceevoice is going to be a part of this I think we need to also look at the reasons why she was blocked for a year and the people involved in that here is the thread on the subject. I think this is, in some ways, central. What do others think? futurebird (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That would require changing the "scope" of the discussion. That would probably be up to the Arbitrators, although I get the impression, from their asking her to be included, that they'll be considering that matter in some way anyway. I'm not sure it's likely that such information can be gathered in the one week allowed for gathering evidence. You might leave a message on the talk page, or elsewhere, asking to either have the scope of the discussion expanded, or a separate discussion on that matter included. However, to include it here, it almost certainly would require direct evidence indicating that one or more of the parties already named, particularly Dbachmann, played a significant role in those undertakings. John Carter (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying that maybe we need to add those admins who were involved. (?) But, I want feedback on how to do this becuse I don't know much about how blocks happen and how often a block is reversed, and if there is anything that happens when a long 1-year block turns out to be the wrong call. Do admins have records of how many of their blocks were reversed? I don't want to start wildly pointing fingers without some advice. I would like to present evidence that the block made no sense-- This is important because if we are going to talk about things Deeceevoice said we need to take the context of her being blocked for one year for no real reason in to consideration. futurebird (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And frankly the block has a lot to do with the reasons for parts of my comments at the RfC.futurebird (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that that block was raised in part as a result of the terms of a previous ArbCom decision placing Deeceevoice on probation for a year. But looking at that, it seems that a lot of admins were involved, and I'm not sure that as big an inclusion as that would be at this late date is likely. I don't know enough about procedures here to say anything remotely conclusively, though. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for "Afrocentrism"

Dbachmann suggested to move this case to "Afrocentrism" and to examine the conduct of the users in that sphere of editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Bakaman 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed As the incident seems to involve much more than just the Afrocentrism and Race of Ancient Egyptians pages, as per User:Pigman.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed per Ramdrake, Pigman. futurebird (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Opposed I am preparing a statement for the /Evidence page but meanwhile I'd like to say I believe the issues involving Dbachmann's behaviour extend much further than just Afrocentrism or related subjects. Please see my statement and :bloodofox's statement in the Dbachmann RfC 3 for a brief outline of these concerns. Pigman☿ 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed, my own similar experiences with Dbachmann have taken place in completely unrelated spheres. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--D-Boy (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed There is much more going on here than just conduct issues on Afrocentric articles. Ovadyah (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for Article probation

It is proposed, given the extremely contentious nature of the discussion at several articles, including Afrocentrism and Race of Ancient Egyptians, and the fact that these articles will often refer to sources which may have been themselves either created or popularized for the purposes of advancing a political position or otherwise playing into the political sphere, that these articles, and any other articles which deal with the same general subject matter, be placed on probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.John Carter (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - One of the reasons for WP:APROB is "Long running failure to improve from strongly biased or otherwise compromised quality." However, this article has improved, there are comments on the talk page that attest to this. (See: [2], [3].) I don't know if this step is warranted. As an admin has been involved in the edit waring, I also don't know if giving admins extra latitude to ban users is the solution. I speak about the article Afrocentricity, I'm not fully familiar with the article Race of Ancient Egyptians it might make sense for that one. futurebird (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as I believe the behavior issues reported here go beyond the scope of the two articles mentioned.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It should be noted that placing an article on probation, so far as I can tell, means that any disruptive editing to that article can be in and of itself cause for administrator action to the editor. The template on the Talk:Scientology page and other pages was what I was thinking of in this instance. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support placing the articles on probation. When ever there is a perception of aggressive editing based on strong beliefs rather than facts, then we need to put those articles on probation just so that things don’t get out of hands as it seemed to have here. Taprobanus (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to propose new administrators' noticeboard

We are coming into what looks to be an extremely divisive political season in the United States. Based on prior experience, a number of sources are likely to be either created or highlighted by one group or another during the upcoming season for the purposes of advancing their political agenda or possibly alter voting patterns. Given that there is no incumbent to the United States presidency, I believe that the "discussion" this time around may well be more heated and divisive than last time. On the basis of this, I believe that it might be to the benefit of the encyclopedia if a new administrators' noticeboard, perhaps called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Politics and society, be created where references to content which might be introduced or removed on the basis of these political discussions can be discussed by individuals who will hopefully be able to place the interests of the encyclopedia over their own political agendas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.John Carter (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to add User: Moreschi as an active party

Support - I think we need to look in to his role as well. (Deeee, you should move this to the workshop page. I think that's where proposals go.) I thought of doing this myself but I'm still unclear on how this whole thing works. futurebird (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't care less either way. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a violation of WP:POINT and WP:AGF. Ovadyah (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ovadyah. Another instance of tit-for-tat WP:POINT. --Folantin (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Participation in a RfA is by definition open to anybody. To demand that someone who exercises their right to take part in an RfA be considered a party to that arbitration would very much serve to inhibit participation of non-involved parties in the ArbCom process, and I cannot see how that would even remotely serve the interests of wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is hardly WP: Point or off-the-point. Moreschi became involved the moment he responded blindly to Dab's urging and banned me from editing at Afrocentrism. The issue in the failed ban was not insufficient evidence presented provided to support his precipitous action; the "evidence" was nonexistent/ridiculously flimsy, which is why Moreschi's ban was overturned so speedily. It is why the entire thing -- including the year-long ban -- just faded into oblivion after User: Slrubenstein's bold -- and correct -- action without so much as a whimper. Nor is it "tit for tat." It has been my intention all along to make Moreschi (and possibly another) a party to this case, as is indicated by my inquiry here.[4] Additionally, Moreschi has made himself an active participant in the Arb Com proceeding involving Dab, and he clearly was involved in derision of other editors and in POV pushing at Afrocentrism. Furthermore, concerns raised during the course of Moreschi's failed Arb Comb bid point to conduct which certainly at least bears closer scrutiny. And this is the appropriate opportunity to examine those concerns, and possibly others, in full. Moreschi involved himself in the precipitating incident in this case and jumped into the Arb Com waters here as well -- and, like everyone else, should be held up to examination. The threshold of cause for naming Moreschi a party to this matter is more than met by these circumstances. Finally, Moreschi himself has indicated a willingness to be included. There is no barrier to his inclusion, and it should happen. Forthwith.deeceevoice (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't twist my words. I most certainly did not express a willingness to be listed as a party: in fact I would prefer not to. I simply don't care very much, that's all. Unlike yourself, I've done nothing worthy of sanction, so being listed as a party is not relevant. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a purposeful misreading of your comments, Moreschi, so my apologies. But the standard for your inclusion has been more than met -- as described above. deeceevoice (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: User:Bakasuprman was assigned as an active party (without his volunteering to become one) to this arbitration after vocally expressing himself in the RfC that immediately preceded this RfArb. User:Moreschi has been about as vocal in both the Rfc and the RfArb, and was also a party to the reversed ban on User:Deeceevoice. Strictly by applying the same criteria that must have been applied to Bakasuprman, it should be obvious that his level of involvement is sufficient that he should be considered an active party in this arbitration as well. To me, it's a matter of applyiung the same rules to everyone evenly.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ovadyah.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Bakasuprman got added as a party simply because he commented on dab's RfC. Moreschi, if anything, is more involved in this than Baka. Sarvagnya 16:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wasn't participation in the RFC that caused Bakasuprman to be added as a party, but the personal attacks and incivility that went with it. Ovadyah (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed temporary injunctions

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to soapboxing (such as advocacy or propaganda), furtherance of external conflicts, and political, racial, or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support futurebird (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ramdrake (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportJohn Carter (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lifted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Purpose of Wikipedia and modified a bit. Picaroon (t) 02:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~ priyanath talk 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Cailil ^talk 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportTaprobanus (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility2) Civility is a requirement on Wikipedia; users must act civilly toward one another. Incivility in response to someone else's prior incivility is not acceptable, either. Repeated instances of incivility after requests to desist is grounds for preventative sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support futurebird (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ramdrake (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Such a principle needs inclusion - though I hope someone will come up with better wording. Using "preventative sanctions" instead of "blocking" because civility parole seems to be popular nowadays. Picaroon (t) 02:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Not sure if the phrasing is any better, but, "Civility is a requirement for maintaining reasonable discourse. All editors are required to be civil toward each other. This applies even when dealing with parties who are themselves clearly being incivil. Sustained failure to be civil, on the part of any party, is at least potentially grounds for preventative sanctions." Overlong, but might have a phrase or two that might be useful. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~ priyanath talk 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportTaprobanus (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin responsibility

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support.Bakaman 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ramdrake (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Irrelevant. No convincing evidence of admin abuse by Dbachmann has been brought forward. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the repeated misuse of rollback? Picaroon (t) 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what was meant by "rollback". If it means "reversion", I think he was blocked for that already. Would it be reasonable to create a double jeopardy situation here? John Carter (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who was blocked? Dbachmann? When? futurebird (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support--D-Boy (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the evidence that Bachmann was blocked once for 3RR regarding the subject of the discussion. I believe it was later found to be the case that the block was less than perfectly justified, and in fact that he had perhaps only technically violated 3RR. However, there is evidence of his having been "sanctioned" for his behavior already. Regardless of the lifting of the block by a subsequent admin as "punitive", the judgement was rendered. As this case does not seem to be directly related to that same instance, it does seem to be to at least carry very serious indications of being a case of double jeopardy to seek to penalize someone for somthing he has already been penalized for. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. (I thought you meant he was blocked for the blanket reverts he did at the Afrocentricity article.) futurebird (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Admins should be held to the same minimum standards as the rest of the community. ~ priyanath talk 22:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. And when they fail to do so -- particularly when they do so flagrantly, habitually and without any remorse or stated intent to correcttheir behavior, as has as Dbachmann -- they should be subject to the same sanctions as non admins, with probationary de-sysopping being given serious consideration. deeceevoice (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support Ramdrake (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support ~ priyanath talk 22:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportTaprobanus (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Addhoc (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Lifted from [5].

Support futurebird (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support ~ priyanath talk 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportTaprobanus (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dbachmann has made good contributions to wikipedia6) User:Dbachmann has made good and reasonable additions and comments regarding a variety of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

'Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. The reasoning is also pretty much the same as that used there. This should be definitely recognized. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously true and probably goes without saying. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support All the editors here have made good contributions to wikipedia. ~ priyanath talk 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportTaprobanus (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support I have seen nothing the utmost efforts by dab to preseve NPOV and validity of articles against agenda driven mongers. He is a invaluable asset to wikipedia--Kathanar (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deeceevoice has made good contributions to wikipedia7) User:Deeceevoice has made good and reasonable additions and comments regarding a variety of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

'Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. The reasoning is also pretty much the same as that used there. This should be definitely recognized. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same phrases for one of WP's most prolific, erudite, and useful contibutors as for two contributors who do not edit out of a single field and edit within that field with a pronounced POV and in a possibly disruptive manner is inappropriate. 125.99.160.91 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously true and probably goes without saying. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but just want to establish for the record that no one involved is, as it were, a vandalism-only account. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support All the editors here have made good contributions to wikipedia. ~ priyanath talk 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bakasuprman has made good contributions to wikipedia8) User:Bakasuprman has made good and reasonable additions and comments regarding a variety of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

'Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. The reasoning is also pretty much the same as that used there. This should be definitely recognized. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support All the editors here have made good contributions to wikipedia. ~ priyanath talk 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -VJha ^Talk 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Sarvagnya 16:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of rollback7) The admin-only rollback function is intended for the reversion of vandalism, spam, and mistakes. It is not to be used to in content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Picaroon (t) 22:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather obvious. Should we expand slightly to "...used in content disputes by parties."? Anthøny ^talk 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks8) No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) is a core official policy of Wikipedia, and is essential for cooperative editing on contentious subjects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support as proposed. ~ priyanath talk 22:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a slight expansion on wording, to make this "hit home", per se: "...contentious subjects. All editors should refrain from making Personal Attacks." This would reaffirm the Committee's and the Community's stance on Personal Attacks (that is, don't do them), rather than simply highlighting its importance. Let's make the most use out of an opportunity as we can :) Anthøny ^talk 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Personal Attacks relating to this case9) Calling an editor “fascist”, “nationalist”, “racist”, “troll”, “nazi”, “neo-nazi”, “ignorant”, or other related epithets - without providing convincing and multiple difs as evidence - constitutes a Personal Attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support - all except perhaps "ignorant", which can be used in a non-inflammatory way, non-attacking way (I am ignorant of certain aspects of quantum theory, for instance). All the rest, however, and several others, cannot be used in such a "neutrally judgemental" way. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support as proposed. ~ priyanath talk 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have the ability to block other editors10) Wikipedia Administrators, also known as Sysops, have the ability to block other users from editing the encyclopedia. This is because they have access to tools that non-Administrators do not.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed per WP:ADMIN: "Administrators... can protect and delete pages, block other editors, and undo these actions as well." - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportTaprobanus (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of power11) It is an abuse of power for a Wikipedia Administrator to threaten to block someone with whom they are engaged in a content dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed per WP:ADMIN: "While the tools granted to administrators are technical and do not convey authority per se, administrators are people that are entrusted with potentially harmful tools. Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this takes into account the difference between warning someone about being blocked ("If you don't stop this an administrator may block you") and threatening it yourself ("If you don't stop this I will block you"). Daniel 08:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks too wide ranging of a statement and too open to lawyering. If anybody, whether an involved admin or an ordinary user, tells a user who is soapboxing/vandalizing/edit-warring that if they continue to soapbox/vandalize/edit-war "they will be blocked" is not threatening them (in the meaning of WP:HARASS). It's a fact that continued disruption results in blocking (see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption and WP:DE#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors), and warning disruptive editors sternly is sometimes necessary.

I agree with the idea behind the proposal though. Any admin who decides to use blocking to resolve a dispute should be uninvolved in the dispute itself. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes may already covers this ground anyway--Cailil ^talk 01:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The statement doesn't say "they will be blocked", it says "threaten to block". ~ priyanath talk 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relative experience12) Wikipedia editors who do not engage in policy discussions may be unaware that there are limits on what Admins are allowed to do. Less-experienced users may not know that an Admin would not be allowed to block someone with whom they are engaged in a content dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

13) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact1) The area of conflict in this case is race-related articles, particularly race of ancient Egyptians and Afrocentrism, but also black people, white people, and race and intelligence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This needs evidence of wide-spread and persistent conflict (e.g. multiple arbitration cases, etc.) if it's to be useful. Kirill 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Picaroon (t) 16:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the parties to the arbitration (Bakasuprman) has never edited in this area, so if it's to be kept, the wording should be something like "A locus of conflict in this case is race-related articles..." --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which I why I refused to be part of this arbcom, since my involvement is tangential. But certain folk have axes to grind, mostly stretching back to the halcyon days before Arbcom laid down the law on abuse-infested Wild West vigilanteism.Bakaman 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not too tangential, it seems, to use the RFC as an opportunity to lay in the weeds and snipe at Dbachmann. I have found from experience that the best way to deal with snipers is to bring them out into the light. Consider yourself enlightened. Ovadyah (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly making ludicrous and apologetic statements is more aptly described as sniping than bringing forth a large number of diffs supporting a contention that an admin is behaving in an improper manner.Bakaman 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann has misused rollback2) Dbachmann has misused the rollback function on numerous occasions, after being asked to stop. Recent examples: [6] [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There was an ANI discussion on this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive265#Dbachmann_and_rollback. Its interesting how the two users at the forefront of demonizing me here (Moreschi and Akhilleus) are singularly focused on apologetics for Dbachmann's rollback abuse.Bakaman 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per comments of Cailil below. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence#Evidence presented by Picaroon for a longer, but still incomplete, list. Picaroon (t) 22:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just ask the same question I asked in the ANI discussion that Bakasuprman linked to above: "Is there an actual policy that says when we should and shouldn't use automated tools, or is this a matter of etiquette?" The answer I received then is "It's a matter of etiquette." Is there a different answer that someone can give me here? Policy pages, previous arbitration cases, something else? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have precedents and WP:ROLLBACK#Rollback, which says –

"Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted."

— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's helpful. WP:ROLLBACK isn't a policy page, though, and Fys was desysopped for abusing admin tools in general, not just rollback, so I'm still unsure of the exact policy here. In fact, WP:ROLLBACK makes this sound like a matter of etiquette--"If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation..." makes it sound as if it's just fine to use the rollback feature as part of normal editing, if you leave a note on the talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine as long as you remember to leave a note on the talk page, and not use it in the same manner as you did before. WP:ROLLBACK is not a policy page, no sir, but it is meant to be taken as a guideline. This page exists on the Wikimedia Meta site as well. Thank you for understanding, but common sense tends to trump everything on Wikipedia – so we will just try and incorporate the fact rather than lawyering for rules and questioning their existence. Fys was de-sysoped and one of the reasons for the de-sysop was the misuse of the rollback tool, and there are certain incidents where Dbachmann used the protection and blocking tool in an inappropriate manner. But in case you believe that I am here to call for a desysop, you are mistaken. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per voluminous evidence. ~ priyanath talk 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: WP:ROLLBACK states, and I'm paraphrasing: 'rollback should be used with caution becuase you can't add an edit summary - which send a negative message to the reverted user.' On the grounds that this finding makes no sense, I'm opposing it. Calling this misuse is a fallacy. Overuse - yes. But overuse and abuse are not the same thing. If Dbachmann reverted using edit summaries the effect would have been exactly the same as using rollback--Cailil ^talk 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per overwhelming evidence presented herein. deeceevoice (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This group w/agenda has had it out for DBachmann, frivolous accusations and action shouldn't be allowed--Kathanar (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann could be perceived as threatening to block User:Bloodofox3) (In the following quote, I have bolded what I believe are the statements most relevant to this proposed finding.)

While engaged in a content dispute with User:Bloodofox, Dbachman wrote:

"I have shown willingness to provide sources where requested, within reason. I'll ask you again to stop blanking content in this disruptive manner, and civilly/constructively ask for attribution for statements you consider unsubstantiated. It isn't possible to work on this when you just keep blanking random passages you don't like. Thus, the connection of Evola with fascism is completely undisputed. Just look at the Julius Evola article. Removing claims that are fully referenced in sub-articles just by pretending they are "unsourced" because no footnote has yet been attached to the local phrase is disingenous. If I went around blanking all mention of "US President" in connection with "George Bush" as "unsourced" unless there is a footnote attached giving a link to official results of US presidental elections would be obvious disruption under WP:POINT, and an editor persistently engaging in such behaviour would be rightly blocked from editing. We cannot work together unless you deign to WP:UCS. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)"diff

It is is reasonable for a less-experienced user, when told this by an Admin with whom they are engaged in a content dispute, to believe they are being threatened with a block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Opposed per Cailil below. No one is responsible for doing something which someone else, particularly if they are themselves directly involved, could "perceive" it as being. Establishing such a precedent would be basically saying that anyone is responsible for the ways others choose to twist their comments, and that would be extremely counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per policies in proposed principles 10 and 11, proposed principle 12, and per evidence statement by User:Bloodofox. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I essentially took this as "if you remove that again I will block you" as it is not-so-subtly conferred. My crime? I had removed the assertion of a magazine being "Neo-Fascist" once as since the subjects themselves provide a denial, it's libelous, inflammatory and Dab provided no source at all. This is probably because that, as we had previously discussed on the Tyr talk page, there simply was none over at Tyr (journal). There is still no reference there or anything remotely resembling it. It's just stated as fact, as if the magazine self-identified as Neo-Fascists, which they've stated they blatantly denied. Even if they were a bunch of fascists it wouldn't matter if we couldn't verify it.

It should also be noted that since I am not an administrator and have really no desire to be one at this time (as well as have never been under the prospect of being blocked.. as far as I know!) I did not edit this section again since I would prefer to continue contributing to the numerous articles I regularly deal with on a regular basis than spend any time stuck in some form of suspension where I couldn't and just thought I should bring it up on the Evidence page instead.

Only earlier today did I venture to put a "fact" tag on it after doing some other edits on the article and this glaring chunk of Dab's personal, unverifiable and unsourced opinion still stands there at the time of this writing despite two editors requesting a citation and having both removed it on separate occasions, only to be responded by Dab with a wholesale revert. It seems that only since I further questioned it, I got a very thinly veiled threat of a block on false premises.

Is it not true that deletion of libelous, unsourced material is not only supported policy put recommended by it until a source is found? Isn't this a basic, fundamental aspect of Wikipedia? Besides, how does a single case of deletion of unsourced, challenged and potentially libelous information equate to "blanking" and "disruption"? I am concerned. How many more situations are there out there like this that Dab is responsible for now outside of the issues I've brought up? How many more will appear? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to suppose neither of you understands what is meant by the passive voice? 125.99.160.91 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the anon. "An editor persistently engaging in such behaviour would be rightly blocked from editing" doesn't even remotely suggest "I will block you". There are a thousand other admins available to do it, and Dieter certainly knows better than to block someone he's engaged in a content dispute with. (He was the one who warned me not to do it when I was a newbie admin!) —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here[8] is an example of Dbachmann blocking an editor with whom he was engaged in a content dispute (also note the name-calling by Dbachmann in the paragraph preceding the block complaint). ~ priyanath talk 05:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox claims that Dbachmann inserted the word "neo-fascist" into the article Tyr (journal). Please could could he supply the diff? If there is no such diff, please could he refactor his statement? I noted the words "eco-fascist", "neo-pagan", "new right", "anti-modern", "pseudo-scholarly", "völkisch", etc, but not "neo-fascist". That is a quite different kind of word. Mathsci (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Mathsci! I agree that these are very different terms. Please note that I was referring to multiple instances where he places "Neo-Fascist"/"Neo-Fascism" as an unchallenged descriptor for Tyr and Tyr's Radical Traditionalism (which he specifically internally links to Tyr with instead of the disambiguation page you get if you go to "Radical Traditionalism" as it can refer to a number of things) on various pages, such as here: [9], here: [10], here: [11], here: [12], here: [13](from an article called "Nazi Satanism" and then to one called "Neo-fascism and paganism": [14]) but the amount of mergers into the new article due seem to have largely shredded the pre-merger histories from what I can tell and it is not helped by the fact that Dab rarely uses edit summaries.

However, specific to the Tyr (journal) page itself, Dab also placed the link in the "see also" section:[15], which were not from the merge source and were his own additions. Note that this also includes a link to the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. Dab created the redirect between Tyr and Radical Traditionalism, by the way. I apologize for not having included this in my original posting there, it would have been helpful! :bloodofox: (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping to the subject, namely Tyr (journal), Dbachmann never wrote that this journal was neo-fascist. The passage on Radical Traditionalism seems appropriate and better prose than what is at present in the article; Dbachmann makes no specific mention of "neo-fascism". You seem to be upset at what he wrote in other articles, unspecified in your original complaint. I return to my main point about your own particular Achilles heel: you seem to be quite understandably disturbed that Germanic paganism has been tainted by association, following the misuse of its imagery by political groups on the far right. However, that is not Dbachmann's fault, nor should it be covered up. Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your contributions to Neo-völkisch movements, the article very recently created by Dbachmann. This article seems to have been edited with scholarly consensus by Dbachmann and others, prior to your own very recent edits where you blanked a sourced passage by Dbachmann [16], later restored. The word "sanitization", used by Dbachmann on the talk page to summarise your edits, seems appropriate. Quite inexplicably, you later added {fact} tags even where citations were provided. [17]. You have also had disagreements there with editors other than Dbachmann, also connected with sanitization. This behaviour seems unduly disruptive and suggests you might now have an agenda. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I provide for you above repeated diff links above where Dbachmann refers to Radical Traditionalism (which is the ideology of Tyr and the page intentionally hyperlinks to Tyr) as "neo-fascist" above. Are you somehow attempting to separate Radical Traditionalism as advocated by Tyr, from the magazine? It only exists in the magazine outside of John Michell (writer), who is quite uncontroversial and certainly not "neo-fascist". Otherwise, I am not sure how you are missing this or how it is possible to dispute that with those diffs. And yes, later restored.. by Dab, as it has been each time. However, the text has been questioned by others, as can be seen on the talk page and edit history. Currently, it has been edited heavily to reflect proper sourcing and abide by policy and is still extremely questionable. There are problems specifically with passing Coogan's opinion off as fact with Moynihan, which I talk about here: Talk:Michael_Moynihan_(journalist)#Coogan_.281999.29. Not only is it completely against WP:NPOV to pass disputed opinion off as fact, Coogan's statements have numerous problems and per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, specifically, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources, these things need to be examined and very closely. Note that I have no problem with noting in articles that Coogan states these things as his opinion but I have a serious problem stating them as fact and not as Coogan's unattributed opinion. We're talking about a living person here and we must abide by policy, which is specifically heavy in this realm. I think what you are confusing for an agenda happens to be that I am pretty familiar with this subject area, as it's one that has been retreaded endlessly in these circles. This fact tag you point out is my request for his source, rather than just a year and a name, so I that can look it up. Also, can you link me to someone talking about me attempting to "sanitize" these articles? This seems like a cop-out that I am taking questioning their comments. The Moynihan page, by the way, is still in the process of being constructed and the reception and controversy section is nowhere near done and I will work on it sometime in the next few days. Again, I'd like to state that I have no problem with stating someone has an opinion but when it's being passed off as unattributed fact that is potentially libelous, that's a serious issue. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: Dbachmann used the word "sanitize" on the talk page of Germanic Neopaganism [18], not specifically to you, but you took him up on it. As you say the Tyr (journal) article has now been merged with Michael Moynihan (journalist). Discussions about that are more appropriate on the talk page of Michael Moynihan (journalist) than here. Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(partial undent) It appears Dbachmann merged the Tyr (journal) article into Michael Moynihan (journalist) without consensus. It appears that after the content dispute did not work out the way he wanted it, he tried to AfD it. There was no consensus so it was closed as keep. I think it was inappropriate for him to then attempt an end-run around the decision by blanking and redirecting the page. I have restored the Tyr and Moynihan pages to the state they were in at the closing of the AfD. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Warnings like this are not threats. The bolded pieces do not show Dbachmann threatening bloodfox that he would block him. A logical jump has to be made for one to consider this is a threat rather than an accurate statement of policy regarding WP:DE--Cailil ^talk 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nothing new here. ~ priyanath talk 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What some editors here seem to be missing is the context in which this was said. Dab was adding an inflammatory, completely unreferenced statement repeatedly. Per policy, I removed it as it was removed by another user before me, citing that it was unreferenced. The subject that the term was applied to had issued a disclaimer stating that it wasn't true, thus such an uncredited descriptor was libel. Dab then decided to respond to me with this. I was completely following policy and there was no reason to mention this other than attempt at intimidation. I think it would be difficult not to read this as: if you don't stop "disrupting" me, you could be facing a block. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then a revision of the original statement would be called for. However, I stand by my earlier comment that saying that someone could be "perceived" as doing something opens the door for any number of spurious allegations of "I don't like what he said to me" in the future. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This group w/agenda has had it out for DBachmann, frivolous accusations and action shouldn't be allowed--Kathanar (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this matter has since ended and Dab was cautioned, I'm curious what "group" you're talking about. I don't know any of these people nor had I even encountered any of them before here except Kathryn. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't Good cause to impose a one-year ban on User:Deeceevoice4) Based on the number of editors who opposed the one-year ban originally imposed on User:Deeceevoice, and the subsequent reversal of this ban, it is proposed that User:Deeceevoice's ban be found not for good cause, in the sense that sanction was totally out of proportions to the purported offense. It should be at the arbitrators' discretion to decide whether any sanctions should be imposed on those admins who imposed this ban, as per the provision laid out it WP:Probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Ramdrake.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support futurebird (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think I disagree, but community bans get overturned all the time, so not a big deal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as well. Whether it was good enough is a different matter, but it is clear to me that there was a problem to be addressed. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my point is precisely that the cause should never have been considered good enough. There was a problem to be addressed; but a one-year ban was absolutely unjustifiable and totally out of proportions to the purported offense.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this was a mess. I really feel (as I said on the talk page) that the ban should have been mooted and discussed ala WP:CSN. However I don't think there is "good cause" to blame Moreschi. The ban was over-turned by consensus, and so was the block. Moreschi brought the ban to WP:ANI where it was discussed. I think that it should have been brought before rather than after implementation.

I support Slrubenstein's unblock but I don't blame Moreschi or Viridae. I can't support this wording, but I support the idea that Deeceevoice's ban and block should have been discussed fully prior to their imposition, if imposed at all--Cailil ^talk 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm having communications problems today (not any of your fault). I am not calling for a blame of either blocking admin; I leave that entirely up to the arbitrators. All I'm looking for is some kind of closure that says in retrospect that this severe a sanction was a bad idea compared to the actions being reported for DCV. Here's hoping I made it sufficiently clear this time.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support One-year bans shouldn't be handed out like candy. ~ priyanath talk 22:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Agree with Priyanath. Sarvagnya 19:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bakasuprman has engaged in tendentious editing, edit warring, incivility arguably to the point of outright trolling, and has consistently viewed all subjects through a filter of strong bias, rejecting good sources which say things he does not like [19], accepting poor sources which say things he does like [20], and imputing to bias and evil intent those actions which do not meet with his approval, with [21] being an example of his behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose - What a nice generalization. Certainly untrue considering the three pages listed are a mindboggling one-percent of my edits. Bakaman 04:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. While Dbachmann's dedication to the goal of building an encyclopaedia is in no doubt, Bakasuprman appears to be here primarily to promote a POV. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider, having never edited with either Bakasuprman or Dbachmann, and having reviewed the evidence here I have to support this. Encyclopedic writing here is about recording the mainstream, reliable, views on subjects in an accurate and neutral manner. The evidence in this case shows Bakasuprman is not editing with that goal in mind and is effectively disrupting WP to make a point--Cailil ^talk 20:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Folantin (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~ priyanath talk 22:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have had several interactions with Bakasuprman in Indian related articles and discussions. Bakasuprman has made several constructive edits. For example, he was responsible for the creation of several sourced articles such as N. G. Chandavarkar and Ghazi Muhammad, among many others. In addition, his discussion posts have been highly valuable to the Wikipedia community. Bakasuprman's contributions to Wikipedia are highly valued by the Wikipedia community as evinced by his plethora of awards. For these reasons, I oppose the proposal. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--D-Boy (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Taprobanus (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bakasuprman is a constructive editor with negligible lapses.-VJha (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Rubbish. Sarvagnya 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Given that Dab described India as a 'shithole', and hasn't, to my knowledge, ever apologized, this isn't a reasonable summary of the situation. Addhoc (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never done such a thing, and have explained about ten times that I haven't. Anyone still repeating such accusations is clearly doing so in bad faith. --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is "in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access". The problem is that you attempt to wikilawyer out of apologizing. Addhoc (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that some people don't bother to read when they've already decided what was said meant. Comprehension is a faculty that can be found lacking. rudra (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have only experienced Bakasuprman as a POV pushing editor.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Painfully obvious by this point. JFD (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support: a long ban, or at least a strong probation on Bakasuprman, is the very very least that needs to come out of this case if it isn't to be a complete waste of time. It is almost unbelievable that Bakasuprman is still editing Wikipedia at this point. Note that "oppose" votes above are purely along "party lines". Wikipedia isn't a battleground, and people voting along "party lines" rather than based on the actual case are in clear violation of this basic principle. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Party lines"?.. *sigh*.. If I'm a 'partyman', what are moreschi, guy, rudra, JFD and others? mercenaries? Sarvagnya 18:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, if this finding was split into several smaller findings, and similar findings were listed against you, then I could agree to some extent about the sourcing. I've probably made more errors about sourcing then most editors, however fwiw, in the context of agreeing your comments about the The Hindu weren't very wise, I could agree to a limited extent about the sourcing issue. However, the assertion that he is a bad editor, because he considers you to have biases isn't something that I consider to be fair. Addhoc (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The support votes are hardly based on "Defending the 'pedia" either, as dab might suggest. Many do it for the stars. I'm not especially surprised however, that he has transformed this arbcom into a political mudslinging, talking about "party lines". To paraphrase his own hypocrisy a group that does not self-identify should be tagged as such. The bad faith, personal attacks, and outright racism displayed by dab is stunning.Bakaman 04:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bakaman,

If I'm doing this for stars, then I've been stiffed for my participation in this Arbitration.

As difficult as this may be for you to believe, I am here entirely of my own volition, with neither prompting nor compensation from anyone.

You know, just like SebastianHelm.

Of course, sometimes I have to be asked.

JFD (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, only as a finding of fact per se. "Oppose" on general principle: the finding is basically irrelevant, because Bakasuprman's histrionics are a distraction as far as this ArbCom case is concerned. rudra (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I can attest to similar experiences, These virulent attacks on dab are just excuses to remove a obstacle to rampant POV editing and agenda driven editing. Making Wikipedia NPOV and valid is a tedious job with this particular Editors contributions.--Kathanar (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann is a serial NPOV-pusher who has provided a valuable service to the encyclopaedia in carefully neutralising the worst excesses of a number of Hindu nationalist editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Cannot support - I have not found this to be the case per the evidence I and others have presented with respect to the article Afrocentrism. I do not know enough about "Hindu nationalist" topics to make any meaningful comment on his edits there. futurebird (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed, based on evidence presented around the events on the Afrocentrism page. While I cannot say whether Dbachmann's behavior at the Afrocentrism page is typical of him as a rule, these events certainly constitute a serious breach of several Wikipedia core policies on his part, and this needs to be addressed formally lest it be allowed to reoccur.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Fowler&Fowler's evidence, and other evidence presented. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Folantin (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know any of these people and probably have little in common with them but this has certainly not been the case per my experience with Dbachmann in other unrelated articles. See my evidence. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per evidence provided by Ramdrake, futurebird, Picaroon, Bakasuprman, deeceevoice, Bloodofox, Rokus01, Sir Nicholas, Andranikpasha, and myself. ~ priyanath talk 22:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed - very little of that evidence, Priyanath, actually means anything. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence doesn't counter this proposal at all (I wonder where Priyanath got that idea); in fact, I agree that Dbachmann is working for neutrality on Hinduism topics. I don't challenge the fact that he's getting articles to a better place. What I do challenge are his needlessly confrontational methods of doing it. Picaroon (t) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. He pushes the Kurgan hypothesis in articles that often give undue weight to other views. Most of the time, this does push the articles closer to the NPOV. Sometimes however, he introduces original research or unsourced personal commentary, for example the "designed as the ideological counterpart" paragraph. Addhoc (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems a little topsy-turvy. What is this Proposal trying to say? That Dbachmann is a NPOV-pusher, and that such qualities are not welcome? If so, the sentence immediately following seems to turn that on its head: it sounds almost as if Dbachmann has provided a valuable service for neutralising other non-NPOV material... Oppose, until clarification is made. Anthøny ^talk 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Endeavouring to oppose excesses by Hindu nationalists, Dbachmann often commits greater excesses himself and in the name of mainstream, he often behaves like a dictator in fields like Indian astronomy of which he possesses superficial knowledge.VJha (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The fact of the matter is Dab himself a notoroious and utterly unrepentent POV pusher, entering article talk spaces with inflammatory and abusive comments and conduct. He wheel-wars his own POV into articles and abuses his admin authority, insulting and attempting to intimidate other editors who are not in agreement with his POV. What's more, he doesn't even bother to explain his edits and has responded with requests to do so with vitriol and more abuse, even enlisting other admins to do his dirty work for him. deeceevoice (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Dab is a very good editor and has great contributions to wikipedia.. yes. The rest of it("..worst excesses of Hindu nationalist editors blah blah blah...) is bollocks. Sarvagnya 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support wholeheartedly: No admin has done as much to uphold Neutral Point Of View and Reliable Sources as Dbachmann, and this is precisely because he stands up to pushers of fringe theories, an example other admins would do well to follow. JFD (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is my general view of Dbachmann as an editor. The fact that many editors have a grief towards him is mostly a result of his habit of opposing and neutralizing all kinds of chauvinism, bias, nationalism, ethnocentricity and pseudo-science. The fact that he has been involved in edit disputes on topics as far removed as nordic/germanic and armenian nationalism to hindu fundamentalism and afrocentrism should attest that his only bias is in favour of NPOV and scienctifically sound methods. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify who you are referring to in the "nordic supremacism" camp? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bloodfox, you're being uncivil in your generalizations. Addhoc (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, allow me to rephrase then.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you've changed "Nordic supremacism" to "Nordic/Germanic nationalism" for the purpose of being "politically correct" as noted in this diff, I would appreciate it if you point out exactly who you are talking about. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly I have changed "disputes with editors" to "disputes on topics" to show that I am not "out to get" any particular users by painting them into a certain camp. For this reason I will not give any examples of editors that have argued against dbachmann taking a standpoint associated with nordic/germanic nationalism, other than noting as an example that he has been involved party in an arb.com proceeding on the topic of Old Saxon. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I state on my talk page, thank you for clearing this up. Since I have brought forth evidence relating somewhat to the subject matter you've mentioned, I wanted to clarify that none of this referred to myself, as I would take issue with it. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with all the positive assessments of DBachmann. He should be recognized for his contribution to wikipedia.--Kathanar (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann has violated several core behavior policies of Wikipedia7) As per the evidence presented, Dbachmann has violated several core behavior policies of Wikipedia including, but not necessarily restricted to: WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. These are serious breaches, repeated even after these breaches were pointed out to him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed--Ramdrake (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. And add NPOV to that list. (More to come on this score! deeceevoice (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what JFD said. I fully expect the arbcom to back me up in my thankless efforts to protect Wikipedia against the attempts of the nice collection of ideologies at play here. You are all invited to try and do a better job. Of course everyone cries "admin abuse, evil pov-pushing" if their attempts are frustrated, come on. We are actually being too nice to ideological pov pushers almost every time. dab (𒁳) 12:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - There is a lot of evidence to support this. futurebird (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support, as the very heart of this case, with abundant evidence provided by multiple users. There appears to be an extremely inconsistent record regarding the disciplining of certain admins. This is a long-term detriment to the community. Further, it's a disincentive to the involvement of newer editors who see what appears to be institutional protection of habitual policy-violating admins. ~ priyanath talk 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. It lokos to me as if Dbachmann has simply been provoked by an incredibly protracted campaign of POV-pushing and querulousness on the part of some decidedly non-neutral editors, Bakasurman and Deeceevoice being prominent among these. The proposed sanctions at the proposed decision page would, I think, do much to fix this. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Guy said. --Folantin (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is very evident. Most obviously, few people could attempt to claim that Dab hasn't violated WP:CIVIL on a regular basis without a straight face. I think very few editors here who have not been on the opposite side of Dab's opinion haven't gotten some sort of back-handed remark or a blatant insult, something I've never had to deal with when dealing any other administrator ever. It appears that we're supposed to take it for granted. This is, of course, aside the piles of evidence that are building up against him on a regular basis. As I present with my evidence, as an example, Dab is sometimes only interested in policy when it suits him.

Instead of relying on sweeping conspiracy theories that surely must exist against Dab, I suggest some of the editors here take a deep breath, step back and consider why Dab has attracted so much attention by various unrelated groups here. While he's quick to label some as "nationalists" or "trolls," I can state that I've never had an inclination towards either habits and would be insulted if anyone referred to me with either terms. Outside of this, I would think it's obvious this isn't some united front against Dab considering that I, personally, have no relation to these editors as Dab himself, unhappy with my involvement here, notes on my talk page: [22].

The most obvious answer is that an amount of this is true. It would seem to me that all this attention stems from his conduct dealing with other users. If he were polite, straight forward, wasn't so fond of insults and back-handed remarks, then there'd probably be no need for this at all. The real question is - how far does it go? Trust me, I would much rather not be involved in Arbcom at all as it really eats into my Wikipedia time. However, I saw a pattern here and felt I should say something. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, routinely describing any editor to an India related subject that doesn't entirely agree with him as a "Hindutva troll" is certainly a violation of the civility policy. Addhoc (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There is no such thing as NPOV from the perspective of people's positions. DAB considers anything anti-Hindutva as NPOV and anything pro-Hindutva or even neutral as POV. Furthermore, he not only regularly violates WP guidelines towards POV pushing and thus prevents articles from being balanced. He prefers to cite biased sources and refuses to use the same rules for evaluating sources with other presentations--often doing OR into why they are bias! 71.250.138.56 (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. DAB is more than uncivil to all those editors who do not share his bigoted attitude towards India related articles. Often he reverts edits by knowledgeable editors without any discussion and introduces ludicrous statements, e.g. in articles related to Indian astronomy, a field he never studied seriously but poses to be expert of.VJha (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose emphatically: I agree with Guy's assessment. Dbachmann is one of the few admins willing to stand up to campaigns of POV-pushing. It makes absolutely no sense to tie the hands of our admins and give free run of the place to POV-pushers who, to put it bluntly, shit on Neutral Point of View, Reliable Sources, Civility, and No Personal Attacks. JFD (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This group w/agenda has had it out for DBachmann, frivolous accusations and action shouldn't be allowed--Kathanar (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Discretionary sanctions1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or expected standards of behavior. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, and restrictions on reverts. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor(s) in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator in question, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Assuming that we want to impose discretionary sanctions here—and the current FoFs are not convincing—I see no reason why we should abandon the actual discretionary part in favor of such a watered-down version. Kirill 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. Also think addition of a template similar to that on Talk:Scientology and the other related articles would be appropriate. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lifted from Macedonia and modified a bit. Area of conflict here is all race-related articles, as specified in my proposed finding of fact. Picaroon (t) 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This still rather-new rememdy is not a great path to embark upon. It could be summarised as "any uninvolved administrator may do the committee's job for it". But the committee was elected precisely so that admins do not have to do this kind of thing because it leads to,... well, we all know what kind of mess it leads to. Does the committee find sanctionable evidence? Sanction them. Do they not? Then do not sanction. If the committee merely cannot make up its mind, then they can apply no sanction (and ought to examine whether indecision is viable in arbitration - the last step in dispute resolution). Offering the admins, and the editors suddenly placed under their dominion, wobbly piles of jelly is not the point of this process. Splash - tk 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure I disagree. I think one question which could be relevant is whether the sanctionable actions could be overlooked for a time because there had been no prior statement to that party that such conduct was sanctionable. In effect, if the innocent by ignorance of the law defense were valid, then it might be reasonable to say, in effect, "OK, you didn't know this was illegal. Fine. You do now. Do it again, and there will be trouble." Whether that is necessarily appropriate to whichever parties such a sanction might be placed on is another matter entirely, of course. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions1.1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing race of ancient Egyptians, Afrocentrism, race and intelligence, black people, and white people if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or expected standards of behavior. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, and restrictions on reverts. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor(s) in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator in question, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support - However, in extreme and blatant cases, I think it would be acceptable if the need for a warning be waived. Also, placement of a probation template similar to that on Talk:Scientology might constitute sufficient warning. And I prefer that the sanction be applied on the broader alternative scope of articles. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed - I think warnings are important. They greatly reduce the chance for real or perceived unfairness in terms of the actions admins take. futurebird (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Alternative; only the specific five articles where there has been the most dispute. Picaroon (t) 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions1.2) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict, including Race of ancient Egyptians, Afrocentrism, race and intelligence, black people, white people, and related articles if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support - Language was taken from the Macedonia case. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose Better for ArbCom to give sanctions in these cases, than any "uninvolved" admin. ~ priyanath talk 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attack Parole for involved parties2) Withdrawing poorly thought remedy, leaving proposed principles above. All involved parties are on No Personal Attack Parole for one year, with increasing blocks for each violation of Proposed Principle 4.1.11 above. Arbitration Committee members will determine violations, penalties, and whether the evidence provided to justify a personal attack is accurate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose- Why on earth should I be on any kind of parole when I haven't even broken this rule? Is there any evidence that has been presented to support this for me or Ramdrake at all? I also feel that the tiny bit of evidence put here for Deeceevoice is very very weak, not enough for "year long parole." I don't see where she made a personal attack, the evidence shows that she kept asking Dbachmann to justify his edits in a demanding way. Nothing more. I would, however, support this for Dbachmann. futurebird (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support--As long as being on parole isn't in some way saying that I'm guilty of making large numbers of personal attacks I have no problem being on parole as it would not change much about my actions. futurebird (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support as proposed. ~ priyanath talk 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By proposing this, I wasn't implying that any editors have violated no personal attacks, especially Futurebird and Ramdrake. That's why I offered myself as a victim in the next proposal. I realized I was going out on a limb, and jumping (as I said in my edit comments), and that this proposal wasn't going to make me very popular; and has little chance of being supported. But it will hopefully stimulate alternate proposals based on WP:NPA. My apologies, Futurebird, for any implication that you, Ramdrake, and Deeceevoice violated WP:NPA. ~ priyanath talk 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. futurebird (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attack Parole for other parties3) Withdrawing poorly thought remedy, leaving proposed principles above. Other parties associated with this case, including but not limited to myself (User:Priyanath), User:Folantin, User:Moreschi, User:Akhilleus can also be put on No Personal Attack Parole for one year at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support as proposed. ~ priyanath talk 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakasuprman banned4) User:Bakasuprman is banned for 90 days for tendentious editing, incivility and violating WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose - Moreschi's evidence really doesn't support anything.Bakaman 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, per Moreschi's evidence. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bakasuprman was added to this RfA solely on the basis of his comments in the RfC against DBachmann. Eleven editors supported his comments there, including several editors in completely good standing, with completely clean block records (i.e., not all 'nationalist trolls'). If he should be banned, then so should I and several others. I still support his comments there regarding Dbachmann. Further, if editors are punished for substantiated comments in an RfC, it would have a very chilling effect on people speaking out against abusive editors in future. ~ priyanath talk 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the comment "Needless to say fascism is a little closer to his side of the pond", with its oh-so-subtle link to Nazi? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that link — but considering DBachmann's comments about Hindus (which are far worse and nowhere near "oh-so-subtle"), it's not a surprising response. Do you support DBachmann's comments about Hindus ('shitholes', 'fascists', 'hopeless', 'gerontophilia', 'trolls') to which Bakasuprman was responding? ~ priyanath talk 05:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question. But you seem to think Bakasuprman is justified in implying that Dbachmann is a Nazi. That's sad.

To answer your question, I won't say that I support all of the comments that you mention, since I haven't looked at the context of all of them. The "gerontophilia" comment is fine; any reasonable person should realize that Dbachmann wasn't talking about anything sexual--but a number of people are determined not to be reasonable, apparently. Ditto for the "hopeless" comment--anyone who reads this comment should realize that Dbachmann wasn't insulting Hindus, but commenting about the attitudes of other users. But again, people seem determined to misinterpret his comments. If someone is willfully misreading other editors' words in an attempt to have them sanctioned, I think the word "troll" is quite appropriate.

So, to return to my question: do you support Bakasuprman's insinuation that Dbachamnn is a Nazi? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasonable person would know that its merely contextual. Dbachmann talks about Hindu fascism (a very fringe-y leftist canard), accusing users of being fascist, that he needed to be reminded that the most obvious example of fascism came from directly north of where he edits from. That's all the statement means, and I'm surprised that Akhilleus goes far in psychoanalyzing my behavior, yet supports Dbachmann's labeling of users as "fascist", "hopeless", etc.Bakaman 16:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, I'm sorry to see you justifying Dbachmann's religious/racial slurs against Hindus, for that's exactly what they were — shame, shame, shame. And then you attack those who are speaking out against his prejudice — shame again. The 21st century, at least on Wikipedia, is starting to look just like the old one. ~ priyanath talk 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is rediculuous. Take a look at what Baka's edits are and the comments by DAB, Akhilleus, and company. Baka's edits are supported by other editors who do not have an anti-Hindutva bias and do not believe in POV pushing (specifically pushing the POV that Hindutva is evil). Kkm5848 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have had several interactions with Bakasuprman in Indian related articles and discussions. Bakasuprman has made several constructive edits. For example, he was responsible for the creation of several sourced articles such as N. G. Chandavarkar and Ghazi Muhammad, among many others. In addition, his discussion posts have been highly valuable to the Wikipedia community. Bakasuprman's contributions to Wikipedia are highly valued by the Wikipedia community as evinced by his plethora of awards. For these reasons, I oppose the proposal. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - if anyone should be banned it is User:Guy that should be banned in this witchhunt against baka.--D-Boy (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Silly and pointy. Sarvagnya 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeTaprobanus (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bakasuprman is a good editor and it is bad to ban him. In strict sense of the term, Dbachmann is not a fascist, but I found Dachmann too intolerant of others in a lot of cases. Baka was not calling DAB names but merely pointing towards DAB's intolerance of others. -VJha ^Talk 11:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is entirely possible to get a person worked up to say a few loose things by repeated abuse and disruption (even while remaining just within the guidelines, though that was not the case here). Making that a basis of a 90 day block is bit of absurdity. My personal experience with a certain user makes that very clear to me. I am sure we are not making Nirvana, or at least stoicism, a behavioral requirement here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: JFD (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

far too short. either ban him for a full year, or impose additional sanctions such as 1RR. Otherwise he'll just sit out his 90 days and come back with redoubled holy wrath. Bakasuprman is a long-term problem to Wikipedia, and as such is looking for a long-term solution. dab (𒁳) 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Totally unwarranted/unsupportable, given the evidence provided. deeceevoice (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bakasuprman restricted is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose - I have not been blocked in the last 15 months for edit warring. There is almost nothing in common with myself and Bharatveer and I am highly offended Guy would even suggest this. Bharatveer didnt have over 200 articles created or 60 DYK's to his name.Bakaman 04:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I've read nothing which merits this. deeceevoice (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer, a case of an editor with what look to be similar problems. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be fine with me. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~ priyanath talk 22:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: but if he enters WP:ADOPT and demonstrates good contributions to the project for 6 months, the restriction should be lifted then--Cailil ^talk 22:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Folantin (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Folantin should be banned for promoting such attacks against other users.--D-Boy (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Baka is a good editor. -VJha ^Talk 11:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Taprobanus (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Rubbish. Sarvagnya 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: JFD (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive - better to restrict articles to 1RR per day. Addhoc (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann restricted is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer--Ramdrake (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this is fair. futurebird (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Evidence cited does not seem to me to be sufficient to justify this step. It is also compounded by the fact that there has been no specific prior warning to indicate that such a radical move might be taken later. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. This seems imminently reasonable -- and very lenient/merciful, given his extremely extensive pattern of abuse and his lack of remorse for his flagrant flauting of Wiki policy. He should have to explain his edits like everyone else, and his use of rollback -- which he clearly has abused and used excessively in cases where vandalism has not been an issue -- should be curtailed. deeceevoice (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There is no proposed finding of fact that justifies this remedy. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for pointing it out. I've fixed the issue.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed findng of fact is insufficient to justify this remedy. I don't think it even warrants a caution. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per voluminous evidence provided by Ramdrake, futurebird, Picaroon, Bakasuprman, deeceevoice, Bloodofox, Rokus01, Sir Nicholas, Andranikpasha, and myself. There appears to be an extremely inconsistent record regarding the disciplining of certain admins. This is a long-term detriment to the community. Further, it's a disincentive to the involvement of newer editors who see what appears to be institutional protection of habitual policy-violating admins. ~ priyanath talk 23:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Akhilleus. This is nonsense. --Folantin (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete ballcock. No serious scholar would go near the Afrocentrism-related articles with a mile-long pitchfork, and Dbachmann's efforts in restraining the recurrent problem of Hindu nationalism on Wikipedia have been nothing short of heroic. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This says nothing about the possible value of Dbachmann's edits, it only speaks about the manner in which they were made; or are you saying that supporting one specific POV justifies bresaking WP:AGF, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, even if the POV was right (and in this case, strong evidence was presented that it wasn't)?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill. Dbachmann has violated policies, yes, but certainly not to the extent that this is necessary. A caution would be sufficient. Picaroon (t) 23:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill - better to caution and then agree that articles are restricted to 1RR if required. Addhoc (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this is fair.--D-Boy (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tim Q. Wells (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Taprobanus (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. DAB should be prevented from reverting without discussing any contribution which is not vandalism. He must be forced to become more collaborative.VJha (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Evidence suggest that Dabs shortcomings lie in the area of social skills - not in his actual edits. Restricting his editorial rights is excessive.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: If ArbComm is going to censure an admin for upholding Neutral Point of View and Reliable Sources, then it may as well repeal those policies, because that will be the practical effect. The only thing Dbachmann is intolerant of is bullshit. JFD (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very strongly.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This group w/agenda has had it out for DBachmann, frivolous accusations and action shouldn't be allowed

Dbachmann cautioned is cautioned to avoid misuse of the rollback feature, and to remain civil in his talk page comments and edit summaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No need for a restriction of some sort; this will suffice. Picaroon (t) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator should know when he can and cannot use admin rollback. Correct me if I am wrong, but Dbachmann has been warned about his use of admin rollback in the past, yet it seems he continued to use it inappropriately. In my opinion, being cautioned by other editors and being cautioned by ArbCom are on the same level, and given that the former has already occurred, I believe a restriction is a better course of action here. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Dab is otherwise an excellent editor, so only a caution. Addhoc (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nonsense. --Folantin (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support.DAB is a good editor in most cases but a bad admin in most cases esp related to India. He needs more than cautioning.VJha (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dab should be told to be more civil, yes. Restricting his editorial rights would be bad for wikipedia.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nobody needs the arbcom to ask me that. come to my talkpage and ask me about any edit of mine, and I will explain myself, and if necessary apologize. But then this case isn't about my use of rollback, is it. These were simply dragged in to make me look bad and present an overall impression of a "problem admin" even if, in fact, nobody ever complained about these rollbacks at the time they were made. dab (𒁳) 12:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that shouldn't be arbcoms job. I don't think this case should even have been taken before arbcom. I just have to take this stand because I have personally cautioned you to keep on the civil side on your talk page and in discussions. If I were to say that you have always demonstrated impeccable social skills in your discussions I would be going back on my words.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have been badly insulted while trying to point out a self published article of Witzel as a reference in Indus valley Civilisation. Nevertheles, I agree with Maunus, that Dab's contribution to Wikipedia as an administrator and editor is valuable. I also believe that social skills are as important as editorial and administrative skills. Finally, in light of his enormous contribution to Wikipedia, he might just need to be cautioned to be civil in the talk pages and more open to other opinions. Somebody might bring up this issue again if things dont change. vcpk (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Don't think this or any other sanction is needed. Unlike many editors actually, I have noticed that Dbachmann actually spends a lot of time explaining the npov policy or why a certain pov is nonsense to even unregistered editors when most people would have just ignored them.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This group w/agenda has had it out for DBachmann, frivolous accusations and action shouldn't be allowed--Kathanar (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice banned8) Deeceevoice has shown to be incapable of collaboration with other editors within the minimal standards required for Wikipedia. She has failed her probation and is banned from editing Wikipedia for a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong Oppose- The evidence does not support this in any way. Deeceevoice is one of the most insightful and hardworking editors on the wikipedia. She has done a great deal to improve the neutrality of many articles and she is not afraid to point out errors of fact, even in cases when the opinions held in popular culture and hence the opinions of the majority of editors are against the scholarly articles and sources. Wikipedia is often an unfriendly place for experts, and the scholarly opinion may not be the one held by the lay person. I have watched Deeceevoice, time and time again, explaining the most basic concepts to editors who have clearly spent little or no time reading about the topic they are editing. She has incredible patience. This ban would unfair and merely retaliatory on the part of Dbachmann. futurebird (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I regret the last statement of the above comment, as Dbachmann does not seem to have been himself the person who started this section. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose As per this diff, User:Dbachmann is indeed the one who started this section. While I will not guess as to his intent in creating this section, I believe that, just as the original ban was overturned for reasons of insufficient/bad evidence (the evidence presented did not substantiate the charges), the charges are still unsubstantiated to this day. Furthermore, the matter has already been considered closed at ANI, and I don't see new evidence warranting its reopening. Thus, this to me amounts to retrying Deeceevoice on charges she's already been found not guilty of.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - Where is the evidence for this failure to collaborate with other editors? This claim with a lack of proof just makes me wonder about the editor who put it forward. Is this a personal grudge of some kind? --Lizzard (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's based on the previous ArbCom in which Deeceevoice was placed on probation here, in which taht editor was placed on probation and possibly bannable by any three administrators for good cause. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense, John. That Arb Com case is two years old. Where is the evidence that I have not collaborated with other editors? In point of fact, that charge is not supported by any evidence presented herein -- and it remains unsupportable. The charge and propsed remedy are as groundless as the proposed "cautioning" of futurebird. The fact is there wasn't good cause to ban me, which is why my banning from editing at Afrocentrism and the one-year ban from Wikipedia imposed by Viridae were both summarily overturned. And using the ArbCom to do what the consensus of admins in the aforementioned incident deemed was wholly unwarranted -- and what only the offending admin central to this entire ArbCom proceeding has recommended herein -- is pretty shabby and exceedingly transparent, indeed. This entire business is itself about a POV agenda, of getting rid of a productive, articulate and knowledgeable editor (me) and slapping around those of us who have gone (in the words down below of Ovadyah in her chastising of futurebird) where others "feared to tread," for refusing to show deference to, and for having the gall and the guts, for daring, to take the unfortunate, but wholly necessary, steps to rein in a favored, rogue admin whose pattern of obnoxious, disruptive, abusive, intimidating, POV-pushing conduct is evident, an admin who clearly feels he can violate the most fundamental precepts of Wikipedia at will and with impunity, and who, because of such utterly unrepentent conduct, is a detriment to the project. deeceevoice (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by futurebird really surprise me. In my experience, neutrality is not remotely something she's ("she" meaning DCV) been interested in. She seems to think we have "white articles" and "black articles" rather than just "encyclopedia articles", and she's very interested in keeping "white folks' lies" out of the "black articles". A classic case of non-neutrality with ownership tendencies. Friday (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really fed up, Friday, with your over-the-top, off-the mark characterizations of who and what I am and what I think and believe. Another ridiculous, totally nonsensical statement -- not as stupid (WP: SPADE) and astoundingly inflammatory as your remark about me "trying to start a race war" on Wikipedia as part of the mob at the ANI (I'm still waiting for you to explain that flat-out idiotic statement), but getting there. Give it a rest. deeceevoice (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong- I'm no mind reader. However, my assessment of your intentions on Wikipedia has been formed by looking at the things you've said and done here. I'm reasonably confident I'm not the only one who's gotten the idea that you're here to advance a non-neutral agenda. So, you may want to ponder what it is about your words that would give people such an impression. Friday (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear that there were absolutely no grounds whatsoever for my banning from Afrocentrism or for Viridae's banning me from Wikipedia for a year -- which you jumped right in and supported wholeheartedly -- very reminiscent of your urging me to leave the project, for which you the Arb Com cautioned you in that crusty, old ArbCom proceeding a while back. You might want to consider what about your repeatedly over-the-top, ridiculous, inflammatory mischaracterizations of my intentions indicate that your participation and egging on of the lynch mob at the ANI, coments at the admin noticeboard and elsewhere are perceived as part of a campaign to have me removed from Wikipedia on trumped-up charges -- a fixation that in itself could be described by some as racist and personal. You've repeatedly said around the site, Friday, that you're not a mind reader with regard to me -- so take a tip: stop making pronouncements about what I am and what I think. You haven't a clue. And you're beginning to sound like a xxxxxxx. I'll leave that for others to complete. deeceevoice (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear we won't see eye to eye on this issue. One minor thing- when the year ban issue came up, I believe I said something like "I'd probably support a ban of some length". I didn't support a year, and it wasn't exactly whole-hearted. I don't want to see useful contributors going away. I'd prefer you learned how to edit within the parameters of what is appropriate here. Honestly, if you're worried about being removed from wikipedia, I'd be more concerned with arbitrators who currently support a one year ban than with what some other editor thinks. I'm just one editor with one editor's opinions. My opinions have no teeth behind them. Arbcom is a different matter. Friday (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THere you go again. Reading something into my words that clearly is not there. Where did I ever write I was worried about being removed from Wikipedia? And I know what the arbiters are doing; I knew what they were going to do before they did it, and I referenced them above. And I know full well what their so-called "evidence" is about as substantial as that bandied about in the ANI. And you don't get off that easy, Friday. Your antics contributed to the lynch mob atmosphere in the ANI, just as Matt Crypto's numerous blocks of me in the past -- often ridiculously without justification -- padded the block log upon which the old Arb Com decision was based. Your finger is in the pie as much as Dbachmann's, as much as MOreschi's, as much as Viridae's. deeceevoice (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am not even going to pretend I am aware of the issue here. I just saw what is being suggested, and feel I must oppose it, as this user is a fine contributor on most articles I have seen him edit. I find this suggestion to be a little harsh for what seems to the issue. Second, I am supriesed that this decision is being favored by arbcom, yet it seems the rough consensus of participating wikipedians oppose this remedy. Yahel Guhan 05:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm the subject of this ridiculous suggested "remedy," I'm assuming it would be inappropriate for me to vote ;), but let me ask: where is the evidence that I "have shown to be incapable of collaboration with other editors within the minimal standards required for Wikipedia"? If anything, in my experience this language is imminently more descriptive of Dbachmann's conduct than of mine. At least I make an effort to explain my edits and collaborate with other editors. Certainly, Dbachmann's conduct at Afrocentrism doesn't rise to this simple standard. deeceevoice (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping an arbitrator who supports this decision could respond to my post above? Yahel Guhan 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Excessive - better to restrict articles to 1RR. Addhoc (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what, Addhoc? deeceevoice (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deeceevoice, I meant that I would prefer restricting all editors to 1RR for a specific article that is deemed to be the subject of edit warring. I wasn't saying that I knew which articles should be restricted. As it happens, the final decision appears to be article probation, and Dab cautioned, which seems sensible enough. Addhoc (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. But don't be too quick to give the Arb Com so much credit. I'm a skeptic, and there are still votes outstanding on this particular issue. And "sensible"? Frankly, given the measures Dab seems to be in favor of against other parties in this matter, and given the nature of his repeated offenses for which he remains wholly unrepentent, I favor something even stronger against him. I think he's being treated far too leniently. If he were being held to the same standards we are, he'd be looking at a ban of at least a month or two. After all, he's an admin and fully aware of the Wiki policies he's habitually been violating so flagrantly. deeceevoice (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - Preposterous. Sarvagnya 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futurebird cautioned9) Futurebird is cautioned to maintain WP:NPOV, and to avoid taking the side of editors involved in edit wars based on a shared general gist of opinion or a feeling of solidarity. She is reminded that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, not a battleground or campaigning platform, and to focus on questions of content and verifiability, not wikilawyering or lobbying. (Posted by Dbachmann)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No one has presented any evidence on me Dbachmann. Where is the evidence that I need to be cautioned about NPOV? Or that I take sides based on "a general feeling of solidarity" rather than my own best judgment (in good faith) of what the most neural and balanced presentation of the facts would be? I am very open to criticism, but if I am to be formally "cautioned" I would like to know what evidence this is based on. futurebird (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose the one link presented below amounts to an attempt of guilt by association. Not supported by any other evidence whatsoever and sounds retaliatory on the face of it.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest oppose. This is insulting: "...general feeling of solidary"? What? I have to wonder if she and I weren't both Black, if this even would have been raised. Good Lord! Give the woman some credit for having a mind of her own. This is really, really sucky and totally wrongheaded. I can't believe someone had the guts to even suggest such a "remedy." deeceevoice (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow! Ovadyah (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Precisely my reaction when I read the proposal. You will note that others have responded that this proposal is "absurd" and not supported by any evidence or "corresponding finding of fact for any remedy." In short, there has been no rationale presented for any "remedy" of any sort involving futurebird. Frankly, I'm surprised and dismayed that its author hasn't reconsidered it -- and then summarily withdrawn it. deeceevoice (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment Support Reluctantly. There's nothing wrong with being supportive, per se. However, crusading to "right great wrongs" is considered a form of trolling, and recent talk page conversations come close to meatpuppetry. [23] Ovadyah (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ovadyah, can you explain a little more, please: how is the conversation you linked "meatpuppetry?" I don't understand. futurebird (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't actually say it was "meatpuppetry", but that it might come close to being as much, which isn't the same thing. I think he might be indicating that, if your own conclusions were strongly and perhaps disproportionately influenced by the opinions of another party, and you were to make statements based on those influenced conclusions yourself, you might, in effect, be seen as being, as it were, basically repeating the statements of someone else. That isn't "meatpuppetry" per se, but it could be seen as being close to it. I will take no stand regarding the allegation however, having not myself completely reviewed the material in question. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point you're trying to make, John. Kind of like Dbachmann's enlisting Moreschi to do his dirty work for him in banning me from editing Afrocentrism -- such a smooth handoff -- then Viridae's proposed banning of me from the project and then the rest of the lynch mob glombing on in the ANI to vote to ban me for a year -- for absolutely nothing? And also kind of like what we all knew would happen and what is going on on the Arb Com at this very moment. (Don't let anyone guilt you, fb. This was the agenda all along. I know it, and they know it.) But this weasel-worded charge of "meatpuppetry"? It's simply someone making a charge, but not really making a charge -- if you know what I mean. And it's as inappropriate and unwarranted as the proposed "remedy" itself. deeceevoice (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no evidence, and absurd. ~ priyanath talk 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify. Discussing strategies to use against Moreschi could be seen as acting in a coordinated manner. That's not meatpuppetry, strictly speaking, but not independence either. As far as crusading for causes, your haste to take this dispute to ArbCom, where others feared to tread, could ironically result in a ban on your friend. My only caution is to think more carefully about the possible consequences before you act next time. Ovadyah (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haste? I tried everything else first, and RfC, posting to his talk page, everything. And don't be mistaken here. This is not about Deeceevoice, this is about the insults and contempt Dbachmann directed at me, unprovoked and without apologies or misgivings. This is about the way that he disrupted my efforts to make an article better. And the negative impact I see him having on the wikipedia. futurebird (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried everything? Please consider your talk page discussion with Dab here. Dab offered to talk with you about any content-related issues or any conduct issues involving you personally. You did not do this, but instead, proceeded directly to ArbCom. Dab was well within his rights as an editor to not "answer for his crimes" on that RFC. That would be like complaining that the condemned man refused to put the noose around his own neck at his lynching. Ovadyah (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what? there is no corresponding finding of fact for any remedy --75.39.65.133 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) stoneself[reply]

from what i can tell this proposal went to voting 8 days ago. this proposal looks like it was added today. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Proposed decision --75.39.65.133 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose haven't seen any evidence (whether listed on the evidence page or elsewhere) that Futurebird has engaged in campaigning. Somewhat odd that Dab thinks he doesn't need to be formally cautioned by ArbCom, but he consider that Futurebird should be. Addhoc (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Absurd - If anything, whoever started this section who needs to be cautioned. Sarvagnya 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

On the Evidence submitted by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (SNdMP)The evidence was posted by transclusion of this page in SNdMP's userspace.

The revision history of this userpage shows that its content, as of the transclusion, was compiled with five edits, in two phases: the first two on 29 June 2007, the remaining three a few minutes before the posting to this RfAr (on 11 Dec 2007).

Between the two phases, the page was vandalized several times in early July 2007 [24][25][26][27][28], almost certainly by the banned user Kuntan, who claimed in both the replacement text and the edit summaries that there was evidence to show that the real contents were part of an "attack page" at wikiabuse.com. The same claim was repeated in the /Evidence talk page of this RfAr, and revert-warred out[29][30][31][32][33]. Since the site named is now defunct, there is no practicable way to verify the claim.

The Log of this userpage also shows that it has been deleted and restored several times, the last restoration (undoing a deletion on 10 July 2007, soon after Kuntan's vandalism) having occurred a few minutes before an announcement, to the /Evidence page of this RfAr, that a "list update" was in progress. This announcement was duly replaced with the submission about 8 hours later.

Among the five edits comprising the contents, the 5th was cosmetic, and the 4th removed a short section titled "Legitimate Usage" from the material of the 1st. The contents of the submission to this RfAr thus amount to a "December update" and a "June list" consisting of:

1. The 3rd edit (on 11 Dec 2007), which added to the section titled "Recent misuse of rollback" all items for the months November through July, and a net of two items (one out, three in) for June;
2. The 2nd edit (on 29 Jun 2007), which added all items for the section titled "Page protection while being in content dispute"; and
3. The 1st edit (on 29 Jun 2007), which started the section "Recent misuse of rollback" with items for June through April (and also had the section now removed by the 4th edit, as mentioned above.)

The "December update" need not be analysed in depth, as it merely adds items of a single type (rollbacks) which were not available in June. Moreover, if 5 months worth of items were culled from a presumably much larger mass of raw log data in only 8 hours (from restoration of the userpage to RfAr submission), then the likelihood of the circumstances in each case having been adequately examined is remote. The alternative that could suggest greater cogency, is that the update was effected from a list maintained continuously since June, either off-site or on another userpage.

The "June list" captures the essence of the submission. However, it is not "new" in the sense of having remained basically undisclosed until December. It was linked in this post to WP:ANI on 29 Jun 2007, within hours of the userpage being created.

The AN/I thread was important enough to have been eventually marked for archiving. It was a discussion of Dbachmann's rollback and protection activities and thus pertinent to SNdMP's June list. The early timeline was as follows (on 2007-06-29):

• T01:58:05 EliasAlucard posts a complaint, starting the thread.[34]
• T02:11:49 SNdMP comments about "ownership issues". ("This is not the first time I have seen him edit-warring and misusing admin rollback simultaneously.") [35]
• T02:13:12 Dbachmann responds to EliasAlucard (that this should be a RFC) .[36]
• T02:14:55 Dbachmann responds to SNdMP.[37]
• T02:20:12 Dbachmann states his case, and the essential issue -- not in theory, but in practice -- for admins. [38]
• T02:24:41 SNdMP responds to Dbachmann. [39] The mutual lack of cordiality is evident.
• T04:18:25 SNdMP's 1st edit of the June list (adds/creates the rollback section, June to April)
• T04:20:15 SNdMP posts the userpage link to ANI.("This is only for the last three months, did not really have the time to scroll back till 2004".) [40]
• T05:03:12 SNdMP's 2nd edit of the June list (adds the protection section)

The only discussants openly critical of Dbachmann in the ANI thread were SNdMP, Nishkid64 and Bakasuprman. EliasAlucard, who started the thread, was concerned with his specific complaint only, and did not comment on the more general issues. All other respondents were either supportive or sympathetic. No one commented adversely on this summation by Slim Virgin: "If he feels there's a need to use semi-protection and rollback to protect content from poor editing or abuse, I think we should trust his judgment." In fact, one respondent (Ghirlandajo) commented: "after checking the diffs presented above, I actually applaud dab for using rollback where it should be used. The entire collection looks like an attack page harboured in user space, though." By contrast, no independent/uninvolved admin offered even one item from the list as an example of "misuse" or "abuse".

Essentially, SNdMP's June List utterly failed to convince the cross-section of admins present that there was a problem of any significance.

I have posted an analysis of the protection section of the June list elsewhere on the talk pages of this RfAr. By way of summary, in the light of the foregoing:

1. Of the six items listed, only one involved anything even approaching a legitimate content dispute with an editor in good standing, and that was, as it happened, the subject of EliasAlucard's complaint to the ANI thread cited above, where this analysis of the situation was offered -- without reply or counterargument, and illustrating Dbachmann's statement of the problem perfectly.
2. Three were "disputes" with known disruptive editors, now banned (Alex mond and Nasz).
3. One had no disputants other than hitherto unknown anon IP reverters.
4. And one was a "dispute" that resulted in the disputant, Chaldean, being blocked by another admin -- this being reported, remarkably, in the same ANI thread cited above.
5. In all six cases, semi-protection was applied, as was indeed appropriate to stop disruptions by anonymous accounts. Registered editors were not affected.

In other words, as of 29 Jun 2007, the protection section of the June List was already known to have no merit, as far as the admin community was concerned. The rollback section similarly did not impress. To present the list again here seems pretty close to forum-shopping.

In both phases, the items were collated and published in remarkably short order. Either due diligence for cogency was not exercised, or the segments were prepared in advance. The suggestion of an "attack page" or "off-site dossier" cannot be dismissed out of hand.

It would therefore take a hefty dose of WP:AGF not to deem the "evidence" tainted or tendentious, at least.

But this is still to evade the real issue, which was stated by Dbachmann in the ANI thread, and arguably the reason why the June List was found so unconvincing.

• Is it really a content dispute if anon IPs suddenly materialize and start reverting? It's a dispute of some sort, yes, but is it a content dispute?
• More generally, can a content dispute be diagnosed without regard to context?

If the answer is "Yes", then that is clearly open season for anon IP attacks. If the answer is "No", or even "Not necessarily", then it follows that the ability of admins to take prompt remedial measures to restore orderliness is a Good Thing for Wikipedia.

And how important is this? If there's any value in SNdMP's submission, it's that the problem of anon IP reverting to create or prolong disruptive disputation is not negligible. It's all over the place, which would make it all the more important that competent admins be enabled, not hamstrung.

rudra (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment The preponderance of the evidence suggests that these reverts were collected on an attack page. A careful examination of each rollback and semi-protect shows they were justifiable within the context of the dispute. If so, presenting these reverts out of context is a gross violation of WP:AGF and WP:TE to say the least. Whichever way this ArbCom goes, I recommend that this evidence be taken directly to Jimbo Wales. Ovadyah (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, though, it seems that "evidence" in ArbCom cases is indeed all about mudslinging and nothing but. So, why would JW care? rudra (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SNdMP clearly knew what kind of character User:Alex_mond was because he took part in an ANI discussion about a series of racist attacks by said user on Dbachmann [41] in June 2007. Yet six months later, SNdMP presents occasions when Dbachmann reverted edits by the blatant troll Alex mond (or one of his many socks) as evidence of the "abuse" of admin tools by Dbachmann (see most of the "Armenian" links). In other words, we can presume SNdMP knew the context to those rollbacks/protections but he did not present it in his evidence. For some reason. --Folantin (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the old suppressio veri, suggestio falsi ploy, with WP:AGF for protective cover, and the relatively unstructured format of ArbCom cases implying that the more mud you throw, the better the chance of some sticking. rudra (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In December 2007, when I was trying to point out witzel's self-published article as a reference in Indus valley civilisation, I was insulted and pushed to the corner by both rudra and dab. In the last few days, seeing the length rudra goes and the amount of time he spends to save dab certainly makes me wonder about their undying friendship. good luck, rudra. vcpk (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge by rudra. In response to my comment here, Rudra has unexpectedly removed the edits I have made in Indus valley civilisation without a valid explanation. Well, I know these comments are irrelevant to this section. I however thought it would help the arbitrators who look at the evidence presented by rudra how to evaluate it. vcpk (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy/Workshop&oldid=1147986465"