Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3

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

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC).

---

• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This user seems to be very knowledgeable about a number of topics and has made significant contributions to Wikipedia, but his recent behaviour seems to demonstrate that he has little tolerance for editors with whom he disagrees. He has failed to assume good faith and has engaged in edit warring a number of times. When called upon to substantiate his edits, he has resorted at times to personal attacks. On at least two occasions recently, he has acknowledged his edit warring, but has attempted to justify his actions, calling revert warring "necessary." He displays civility issues when dealing with people with whom he disagrees and seemingly does not hesitate to charge "trolling" for positions opposed to his own, and when challenged on his sources to substantiate his position, he has resorted to personal attacks rather than simply providing references or even meaningful edit notes. It should also be noted that this is the second RfC issued on this user, the other being as recent as July of this year, only four months ago.

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

At the very least, he should be reminded that he should respond to users with respect, even if he thinks they are trolls, explain his edits, avoid revert wars, or in the case of real vandalism, treat it as such. Also, as he is an admin, he should be reminded that he should set the example for other editors, and not consider himself seemingly above the law which applies to all editors.

Articles Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians are both controversial articles. Dbachmann has been editing them in what seems to be an effort to suit his particular POV, edit-warring changes he disagrees with, rather than discuss them calmly and explain his position based on sources, routinely calling editors who disagree with him "trolls", and being generally rude and dismissive of editors who disagree with him, even when his position is demonstrated to be clearly against the consensus of the other editors on the article.

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

WP:NPA

13:56 (Talk:Afrocentrism)

15:33(User_talk:Dbachmann)(comparing the edits of another editor to the actions of Willy on Wheels)

WP:CIVIL

13:53 (Talk:Afrocentrism)

19:02 (Talk:Afrocentrism)

WP:AGF

12:44 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians) (edit summary: "page full of trolling")

WP:3RR (or just edit warring)

1-12:36 (Afrocentrism)

2-13:01 (Afrocentrism)

3-13:43 (Afrocentrism)

4-14:00 (Afrocentrism)

(another, stopped at 3 RV because the article was protected)

1-19:15 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians)

2-12:44 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians)

3-13:42 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians)

Other problematic behavior:

• Insists his position is right, but does not back it up with sources
  • From this diff (User_talk:Dbachmann) I reverted blatant trolling... Really blatant POV which obviously violates NPOV by "simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong", may be treated like vandalism and reverted. then goes on to say to justify his own reversion of the work of another editor he disagrees with (Talk:Afrocentrism), with the sole justification that it is "flawed (from) beginning to end", without any other explanation.

• Condescending attitude
  • From this diff (User_talk:Dbachmann) suggesting that a long-time user leave Wikipedia.

• Blatant disregard for some Wikipedia rules, in this case WP:3RR
  • From this diff (User_talk:Dbachmann), saying that edit-warring is necessary.

• Seemingly holding others accountable to a higher standard than he is, when after trying to justify edit warring, he has this to say about other people who edit-war:
  • From this diff (User_talk:Dbachmann) "What we need to do is build up enough pressure until somebody can be bothered to enforce policy." (ie. ban/block users who he is reverting) "I would love to do that, but I am afraid my constant anti-trolling efforts have given me a reputation of "incivility" (the standard cry of frustrated pov-pushers) that would make it difficult to appear on the scene as the badass admin acting as the redeeming scourge." (He subsequently asked another admin to do it for him here.)

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:CIVIL
3. WP:3RR
4. WP:AGF

(provide diffs and links)

[1] here he refuses a scheme aimed at resolving edit-warring on the Afrocentrism page.

[2] here he is being warned his comments have been taken off the page for being uncivil.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. -- Ramdrake (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. -- futurebird (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- ~Jeeny ^(talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Taharqa (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. , Caveat, I certify the 'basis' of the dispute but I don't actually agree with Ramdrake's summary of it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- deeceevoice (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. . JJJamal (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Parkwells (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Bakaman 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. --D-Boy 18:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Just a short note: two of the edits listed as violating 3RR are contiguous: 12:36 (Afrocentrism), 12:37 (Afrocentrism). For the purpose of 3RR, contiguous edits are treated as one edit, therefore the diffs listed by Ramdrake don't show a 3RR violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's been fixed now.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Dbachmann does a lot of good work for Wikipedia, especially on India-related articles, where he works hard to counter nationalism with more neutral versions of articles. His contributions to race-related disputes have been noticeably less productive, however, as he has been incivil (much of this is caused by goading from others, but that is nevertheless not an excuse), used rollback in content disputes even after I requested him to not do this, months ago, and violated the three-revert rule on at least one, and probably more, occasions. He was recently blocked for a combination of rollback misuse and a three-revert rule violation, but was quickly unblocked.

He is a positive influence in other areas of Wikipedia, but on race-related articles he has not adhered to policies; if admins can't behave in accordance with our standards, why will others make the effort? I do not think he should be desysopped, but do feel that a commitment to not accuse others of trolling and/or vandalism without cause, and to not use rollback in content disputes, is going to be necessary, as is a greater willingness to cooperate with editors he is in disagreement with. If he can agree to these suggestions, then I would expect the three who have endorsed this request and the others he has tangled with on race-related articles to do the same.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Picaroon (t) 00:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Ramdrake (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Taharqa (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. futurebird (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Alun [3] [4] [5] [6] during none of this did Dbachman ever take this to the talk page. (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 21:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. deeceevoice (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC) In checking dBachmann's talk pages (archived versions also), I see this sort of behavior is a pattern across categories -- not just "race"-related articles -- but one which is certainly conspicuously in evidence in articles treating non-Western subject matter, which may evidence some ethnic-based animus or aggressively/antagonistically Eurocentrist tendencies[reply]
10. JJJamal (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. SqueakBox 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Parkwells (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. I sympathize with his drive to fight nationalism since I know its excesses. Regrettably, his disrespect for dissenting editors only fuels the flames and is counterproductive. — Sebastian 19:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having dealt with the editor in question, I have noted that he is willing to be at least ordinarily, and sometimes extraordinarily civil, toward others when civility is also displayed by others. In several cases, that is not the case. While he can be reasonably criticized for his occasional misconduct toward others, I believe it creates an unbalanced perspective to ignore the regular insults and attacks leveled at him and others made by others on these pages. In general, I have gotten the impression that he does try to ensure the content adheres to what he perceives as being the fundamental policies, which do not include a consensus of what may be potentially biased editors involved regarding a given page or content. I have also noted that he does try to bring in other parties to the discussion of these matters, although the success of those attempts varies considerably through no fault of his own. So, while to a degree I can and do believe that some of his conduct on some of these issues can be and does deserve attention, and a degree of rebuke, I have difficulty faulting his goals or intentions, which do seem to be almost solely based on the issues of NPOV, Reliability and Due weight. In many of these articles relating to race with which he deals, he is one of the few parties invovled who is not intimately connected in a very personal way with these racial issues, and I would hope that, rather than regularly attacking or insulting him, the other editors involved would welcome the involvement of what is essentially a disinterested third party who has shown a remarkable willingness to tolerate abusive misconduct directed at him whose own objectives seem to be only ensuring that the content in question itself adheres to core wikipedia policies.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Folantin (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor and administrator Dbachmann is a very valuable editor and helps the project a lot. This goes without saying, however Dbachmann has engaged in edit warring over content of articles and is often uncivil. Generally his justification for such behavior is the assertion that the editors he is reverting or insulting are "trolls" or "vandals" or "disruptive editors", etc. These are not justifications or excuses for either edit warring or incivility. The proper methods for dealing with true trolls or disruptive editors is neither edit warring with them or insulting them. In my personal experience with Dbachmann he has engaged in content edit warring with several editors on at least two articles. Here are some examples of his content edit warring and revert warring on the Race of ancient Egyptians article: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Here is the note about edit warring on the Egyptian race article that I left on his talk page, an attempt to resolve the issue which did not succeed. Dbachmann has also revert warred on the Afrocentrism article: 1, 2, 3, 4, plus: 1, 2. Here is the note about edit warring on the Afrocentrism article. Dbachmann has also acted uncivilly towards other editors and some examples included but are not limited to: 1, 2 and 3. The purpose of this comment from me on this RFC is only to show Dbachmann that the community agrees that incivility and revert warring are unacceptable even if you are an administrator and even if the people you are insulting or being rude to or are revert warring with are legitimate "trolls", which doesn't seem to actually be the case in most of these circumstances. You don't insult or revert war with disruptive editors, you go through the proper channels and warn them and if they continue you have them blocked. Revert warring with them or insulting them accomplishes nothing and only results in more problems. My hope is that Dbachmann will understand this and will refrain from continuing such behavior in the future. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. futurebird (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jeeny ^(talk) 21:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC) [7][reply]
4. Taharqa (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ramdrake (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. deeceevoice (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC) I endorse the summary, but not the hands-off suggested outcome (no double standard for admins; I endorse something substantive in terms of consequences)[reply]
7. JJJamal (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Alun (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Parkwells (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I was surprised at the outraged tone and actual comments made by Dbachmann, regardless of whether he considered he was being provoked. People are making a good faith effort on complex topics.[reply]

These comments address general behaviour beyond the initial statements of those who opened this RfC.

I hesitated for a long while before deciding to post this and I sincerely mean it when I say it saddens me to do so. Dbachmann is obviously dedicated to contributing content to Wikipedia with the intent of improving the encyclopedia. In many, possibly even the large majority of his edits, he diligently and obviously adds and improves content of articles. However, when he disagrees with others on how best to do this, he can get contentious and extremely pushy. In my experiences with him, he has not violated 3RR but he does at times engage in slow revert wars, reverting once a day over long periods of time. In my experience, he is often inattentive to details when he edits, from deleting sourced text to rearranging content in ways detrimental to the article. He sometimes acts like his view of content is the only valid one and is reluctant to compromise. He sometimes inserts unsourced personal POV in place of sourced text and can became angry or dismissive when sources are requested from him. He has sometimes requested changes to an article and, after the change is implemented, complains that a lack in the article directly created by those requested changes needs to be addressed. When compromising on editing an article, he does so with ill grace and sometimes with veiled or obvious threats, such as threatening to delete or massively rewrite an established article. He shows a general intolerance of opposing viewpoints. Once he decides on his personal vision of an article or a group of articles, he will often push towards it with little regard for others' input or suggestions. While these tactics and actions may serve good stead in combating fringe theories, trolls or POV pushers, they also seem to permeate his interactions with almost everyone he engages with on WP. Those who thwart his goals are, in effect, trolls to him because he seems to believe his goals and judgments are superior to almost any editor in his path. While he significantly improves the content of the encyclopedia in many ways, he also significantly degrades the collegial and respectful atmosphere we try to cultivate between regular Wikipedian editors.

The "Desired Outcome" in the initial statement above seems rather toothless and ineffectual. If mere chastising or opprobrium were enough to alter dab's behaviour, his interactions would have shown the effect by now. It appears as if he views others' concerns in these matters as annoyances, frivolous and false accusations rather than reflections of his own violations of community standards of behaviour.

Desired Outcome: I believe any outcome from this RfC should be more than stern words. I believe this RfC embodies a longstanding and continuing community grievance with dab's attitude [8] and the result should be more than a slap on the wrist. I have no wish to censure or castigate Dbachmann, an editor with many good qualities and contributions to Wikipedia, but I would gently suggest the following: That Dbachmann take a wikibreak and seriously re-evaluate his relationship to the project and in particular his relationship and attitude toward other good faith editors. Pigman^what?/trail 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -Jeeny ^(talk) 06:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ramdrake (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. deeceevoice (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC) - habitual hostility and revert warring, which he defends as "necessary," toward other editors utilized to bludgeon others with his POV; I suggest, however, some sort of enforceable hiatus/block/ban from 'pedia so that he can rethink his admin responsbilities, how he treats other editors & how his behavior negatively impacts the project[reply]
5. JJJamal (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Taharqa (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Alun (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Addhoc (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC) I would also note that, since the start of this RfC, Dab has shown some improvement in some of these areas. I've found that when experienced editors stand up to him in a direct and somewhat forceful manner, he will sometimes listen. However, it shouldn't take forceful behaviour to get an experienced user to respect other contributors. Dab needs to understand that mutual respect is essential if he's going to continue to participate in the project.[reply]
10. --Esimal (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I've also had issues with this particular administrator very similar to the issues you've mentioned above. Not only is he exceptionally uncivil to the point of blatant rudeness and insults (as repeatedly noted all over Dab's talk page by numerous users and here plus the various other times he's been brought into question through official circuits) but also has a habit of reverting without note, as recently can be seen here:[9]

With this particular example, one may also note that he's taken a short unelaborated quip from a small review that is basically an off the cuff insult - that the party in question would obviously have an issue with - and then used it as a the descriptor of the subject. This is clearly an attempt to inject an article with opinion by framing quotes, which violates WP:NPOV. The response? A simple reversion on his part without explanation. Since then I've reasserted my position a few times and brought it on to the talk page[10] but it's like pulling teeth with him to get him to follow basic Wikipedia policy when his opinion is involved. This is not OK and would definitely not fly with a regular user.. but from an administrator?

I've had past disputes with Dbachmann over similar circumstances ([11], for example) and I've noticed he's becoming more bullying lately. I simply don't have the time to go through his edits and pick out what he's called (or lumping together with via "See also" sections or bracketed next to) "fascists" or "Neo-Nazis" today by and large without a source. These edits are all over Wikipedia by Dab on all sorts of articles dealing with obscure subjects. They equate to very serious and far reaching ramifications for the parties accused and we must be extremely careful to properly go about policy with these subjects. Because of his dealings with other editors as well as his reckless usage of these terms and the associations they bring on to their subjects, I think action needs to be taken. :bloodofox: 08:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Pigman^what?/trail 07:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ramdrake (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. deeceevoice (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC) absolutely; my ANI and pending year-long block on unsubstantiated charges are a case in point re his ad hominem attacks (as a smokescreen for indefensible revert warring) can cause harm to another editor who, in fact, has edited in good faith. I support a block for some appropriately meaningful period of time, given his administrator status, the habitual nature of his abuses and their impact, and temporary de-sysopping, upon which time his admin privileges would be reinstated -- if in the interim he has demonstrated no further such conduct as noted in this RfC[reply]
4. JJJamal (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Taharqa (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Alun (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. - Jeeny ^(talk) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Problems involving use of quotes, incivility and edit warring also occurred in the India related articles. Addhoc (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Without making any judgment on the political orientations of the groups in question, I think it is obvious that one needs to be very careful about labeling groups as "racist" or "fascist". Needless to say, in the absence of solid sources and without consensus, this can be incredibly inflammatory. In List of Neopagan movements Dab insisted on creating a new section on Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist groups, and he's insisted on adding "fascism" to the Pagan/Neopagan template he's working on, and simply reverting when one of us removes the link. Again, this is an instance where he seems to believe his opinion and OR is more important than sources or consensus, which is unacceptable behaviour from an experienced Wikipedian.[reply]
10. --Esimal (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann may be a good contributor but a really bad bad admin. He comments to users' edits are a bunch of insults. I appreciate this Rfc and having so many users testifying against him is in itself a proof of his behavior. He should at least be suspended for a while for his actions. Xyzisequation (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB:This user has been blocked indefinitely for harrassment --Folantin (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. deeceevoice (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC) A rather unfortunate blanket condemnation of someone who clearly has been a benefit to the project in some areas, but judging from his behavior in the precipitating incidents and in other instances I've uncovered as well, this is certainly true in significant part; he sets a poor example, discourages/assails editors who contribute in good faith, and seems to expect a pass because of his adminship -- and, indeed, his disruptive conduct does appear repeatedly to have been overlooked; I support this user's suggestion for a block for some appropriately meaningful period of time, given his administrator status, the nature of his abuses and their impact, and temporary de-sysopping, with restoration of admin privileges conditional upon no more such incidents as those cited in this RfC in the intervening period[reply]
2. JJJamal (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Agree that he should be suspended.[reply]
3. --Esimal (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, why does this RfC remind me of the wolves trying to get the sheep-dog sacked? Dbachmann is merely trying to enforce Wikipedia's core policies. After all, we're supposed to be creating an encyclopaedia here. If POV-pushers are allowed to skew content and add inaccurate information, then we're failing at our primary aim. More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated. It's also obvious to anybody who works on Wikipedia that POV-pushers operate in gangs to WP:OWN articles and any outsiders who try to introduce a modicum of neutrality into them are likely to come in for a rough ride. --Folantin (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Aryaman (☼) 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- I fully subscribe to Folantin's summary of the situation, and do not have anything else to say on this page. people who come to my talkpage with a reasonable complaint regarding edits of mine that concern them directly will get a personalized reply. dab (𒁳) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (see additional remarks below)[reply]

Additional remarks: (apologies if this is inappropriate, I've never commented on an RFC before)

Not shying from content disputes is indeed a red badge of courage, and not a scarlet letter. Although I have rustled with dab in the past, there is never anything fundamentally bad for WP in the way he handles himself.

The diffs presented in accusation demonstrate that dab does not always use the most judicious language, and that he can sometimes go overboard. But the only thing I can really see him being tied to a whipping post for is his utter lack of grace (for instance, not striking comments that he had made in affect). And it is unrealistic to expect perfect propriety from anything but the perfect angel, and Dbachmann is only mortal too.

His hardheadedness is - by a long shot - beneficial to the 'pedia, and I for one am relieved that he is on the right side of the line. To complement Folantin's analogy ('sacking') with another one: Dbachmann is the little stubby nose guard that we so desperately need to have on the team.

-- Fullstop (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann has been condescending to me and to other users. He seems to feel that some users warrant respect, as he is not contemptuous to everyone, but those who he has labeled "trolls" do not deserve respect. He feels this way about a lot of users, many of whom, far from being trolls, are civil, and productive members of the community. Frankly, even if a user is a troll contempt and bile won't prevent them from disrupting things, it will only lead to more drama.

During a talk page argument at Afrocentricity over material Dbachmann deteled from the article, Dbachmann posted a link to a nearly two year old case on deeceevoice in order to "shame" her. I thought it was needless, off-topic, flame-baiting on his part. It showed a poor ability to judge the best way to settle a dispute. I removed it because I wanted the talk page to stay focused on the article and I warned him about civility.

Later he made a comment to me implying that all I ever do on talk pages in "chatter" and that I think wikipedia is the usenet. I thought that was insulting, especially when I'd so recently warned him about not sidetracking talk page discussions. (?) I'm here trying, in good faith, to make the article better and I get called a troll and my requests for explanations of Dbachmann edits are treated with contempt as if they were unimportant.

Dbachmann also very openly asked another admin to look in to a block for him. (see: [12], [13])He said that he could not do it himself because of his incivility. In other words, he knew that if he did the block himself the double standard would be a little too clear. So, although he did not use his admin powers directly, he used his influence as an admin, his long standing membership in the community, and his reputation for making many positive contributions to take out his anger on another user. That is abuse of power.

The user was initially blocked for a year for actions that are at worst on par with Dbachmann's actions and, in the opinion of a fair number of users, not even as egregious. (the block as been reduced and there is a debate about if it should be lifted) I speculate that this happened because Dbachmann is a long time user and he has done of lot of good work and made a large number of often productive edits and because over a year ago the blocked user obtained a bad reputation. But, none of these things seem to be related to the events that took place in the past few days. I understand that the wikipedia is plagued at times by repeat trolls and admins can't be expected to review every single detail every single time, in fact admins should be able to trust the recommendations of other admins and have some confidence that those suggestions for action are based not on personal feelings but rather on sound fair decisions. Because of Dbachmann's abuse of power, that chain of trust has broken down and it makes a lot of admins look bad, they trusted Dbachmann to make recommendation without involving his feelings and they trusted him to be objective, but instead we have this embarrassing double standard where the admin is not blocked, but the user gets blocked for a year. As a regular user this kind of thing decreases my confidence in the admin system. It's not good for the wikipedia. It's hurting the whole project.

I don't like to stay stuck in the past, I would like some kind of action to be taken, but I hope that action would be something that helps Dbachmann, to return to being a positive contributor. futurebird (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. futurebird (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. deeceevoice (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I endorse this and want to underscore the need for some sort of enforceable punitive action here. As an admin, Bachmann should be held to a higher standard than the lumpen -- and certainly not excused for his habitual and egregious misconduct; it harms users who edit in good faith, feeds the cynicism and distrust of contributors toward the project and the process, and breeds disillusionment and resentment. Update on my year-long ban referred to above -- it wasn't upheld, because DBachmann's red-herring charges were found to be utterly groundless and unsupported by the diffs provided. Added 13:29, 27 November 2007. (UTC)deeceevoice (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alun (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ramdrake (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. - Jeeny ^(talk) 17:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Taharqa (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Bakaman 06:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. JJJamal (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. describing good faith editors as trolls is completely unacceptable. Addhoc (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Pigman☿ 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. -  priyanath talk 00:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Comment In addition, because he is a long-time admin, DBachmann's behaviour has 'trained' countless editors in the ways of incivility, name-calling, edit-warring, and worse. These things are now understood by many editors to be how to play (and win), making official WP policies appear to be an unenforceable charade.[reply]

Deleted inappropriate and offensive comment by User: Justforasecond (see by justification at the comment my JFAS below). deeceevoice (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. --D-Boy 18:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Parkwells (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Futurebird is right to focus on what took place in this incident. I am a relatively new editor on Wikipedia, but an experienced manager. You don't encourage people to reach solutions by insulting them. Futurebird conducted herself with courtesy as she always does. She invited me to the project because she appreciated my contributions. Dbachmann's comments were unproductive and condescending. They went against Wikipedia policy of being welcoming, of assuming good faith, and of focusing on content. The Afrocentrism article is controversial but is improving, whether or not it would ever meet Dbachmann's final approval. His disruption and getting off-topic has caused many people to lose time on this but we care that Wikipedia should do what it says - provide an environment where well-intentioned people can work. --Parkwells (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Esimal (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding this process a bit frustrating, because most of the comments seem to be from either "enemies" or "friends" of Dbachmann. This isn't a popularity contest. I'm not saying that all comments are biased, but I would be eager to hear from any user who has not been involved in a dispute with Dbachmann and who has not defended Dbachmann in the past or taken his "side" in any disputes with him. In truth, there should be no need for taking sides, the matter at hand is simply review the evidence and find a fair way to address the concerns of the editors who have brought the RfC. futurebird (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(please put comments on the talk page)

Dbachmann's pernicious racism and obvious incivility is a noxious menace on the India related pages. He is inherently prejudiced against actual Indians/Hindus editing pages on India and Hinduism, instead taking it upon himself to educate us barbaric Indian-trolls. Sometimes, some of his edits border on plain ignorance, but I stopped assuming good faith a long time ago.

• He refers to India as a "shithole" - This comment raised the ire of many concerned users who took offense with this sort of virulent ethnocentric garbage

• He refers to Hindu editors as "fascists" - This was after the Hkelkar arbcom. Even though only banned trolls and POV pushing maniacs wanted me banned, dbachmann continued these gratuitous epithets. Needless to say fascism is a little closer to his side of the pond.
• "Hopeless Hindus" - The only hopeless endeavor is trying to work in a collegiate atmosphere with Dbachmann around.
• "Gerontophilia" - Again attacking Hindus. Gerontophilia is "sex attraction toward old persons". This kind of pointed bigotry is unacceptable.
• "chatterbots from the BJP headquarters - If all else fails, Dbachmann will whip out some of his unintelligent political rants

• More singling out of the BJP - He basically is Poisoning the well against the party, trying to add tags more apt for perhaps the Swiss People's Party?
• This edit ties a theory to the BJP again with no justification.

• "The Hindu" - Needless to say The Hindu is not only an WP:RS but is one of the most widely read English papers in India. Dab's statement is all the more scary because he was the "mediating admin" in this dispute, and supposedly knowledgeable on Indian affairs.

• On this same subject, dab has no qualms preaching to me that: "A group that does not self-identify as militant Islamist shouldn't be so called lightly, certainly not on WP." even though numerous sources were provided (like [14]). Yet does the same thing with Hindu parties left and right, and we can see that a group that represents 4-550 million Indians should be described as nationalist far-right basically because Dbachmann does not agree with them.

• Accusing me of ties to Hkelkar - I was unceremoniously blocked by Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) because of these kinds of false allegations. Needless to say dab supported these defecations on my block log.
• Name calling. This edit comment is a blatant violation of WP:BLP, referring to an individual as a "kook" on his own page[15], or with Shrikant Talageri adding unsubstantiated "political links", or even a 3 for one mudslinging orgy of slander. When the subject is Michael Witzel, or some non-Hindu then Wikipolicy seems to actually apply [16]
• He referred to a user very knowledgeable on the Arya Samaj movement as an "Arya Samaj troll", both a religious attack as well as a dastardly personal attack. There are "Hindu trolls" and there are trolls, a distinction that is inherently prejudiced.

The fact is that he is irreparably biased against Indians and more specifically Hindus, and wallows in his own ignorance is a very scary thought. This is merely a sampling of diffs for convenience and introspection.Bakaman 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bakaman 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Blacksun (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC) - The militant and often racist attitude of admins like dab is a big wikipedia turn off for me personally.[reply]
3. - priyanath talk 01:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC) This shows that DBachmann's latest abuses and racially charged comments are part of a long-standing pattern. Previous RfCs have done nothing to change his behaviour — it's time for something much stronger.[reply]
4. -User:Bharatveer-As I have mentioned many times before Dab's racism is incurable. Though he can be a good WP editor at times, Dab as an administrator is an absolute disgrace to WP -Bharatveer (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. deeceevoice (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC) OMG. After reading the first diff provided here, I must say I'm astounded. Of course, such attitudes abound -- still -- but rarely do people who hold them have the arrogance to express them so openly as has DBachmann there. Amazingly patronizing. IMO, his comments reek of "white man's burden" superciliousness, disdain and contempt -- which further help place Bachmann's behavior and his numerous other comments throughout this website regarding articles treating non-Western (non-White) subject matter firmly and squarely in the context of -- and I'll say it outright this time, as I have always suspected -- racism. Just appalling. And pretty tragic. This user should be de-sysopped. Immediately. I just read Bakaman's reference to fascism. That's it exactly. Bachmann's antics, his philosophical and practical approach to the project are fascistic. It's a thought I've harbored for some time now, and the remark is right on the money. Yeah, Bachmann may honestly believe he is non-racist, but, then, racists very rarely admit to or possibly even recognize themselves the extent to which their thoughts, words and deeds are poisoned by unreasoned hatred and/or contempt for other cultures/ethnicities. Charitably, one might call him at the very least rabidly, offensively, aggressively Eurocentric. If a euphemism floats your boat, then grab that one -- but racism it is. And it should come as no surprise to anyone who's followed this guy (which I haven't, actually, until now). IMO, his racism and fascism have been clearly demonstrated by numerous contributors to this RfC. Furthermore, he is wholly and unabashedly unrepentant about his conduct -- another screaming reason he's got to be sanctioned. No one is above Wiki rules and procedures. (Added 11/28/07). deeceevoice (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply - I would like to note I am not terming dab a "fascist", I am only noting I was called one by him. I am not going to stoop down to that level of name-calling.Bakaman 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. futurebird (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Wow. this comment is totally unacceptable and beyond explanation. I know very little about the conflicts at these articles, but I feel extremely uneasy knowing this is how one of the admins at this site thinks about other people. I was reluctant to get involved with this because I don't know every detail, but this comment seems pretty much like clear cut racism to me. I will add, though, that this comment is from 2005. So, it is quite old-- however, the complaints about Dbachmann have not subsided in the intervening period. Was anything done at the time the comment was made?(answer on the talk page, I guess?) futurebird (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. JJJamal (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kkm5848 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC) -- Comments from Baka and other users above show clear racist tendencies of the admin in question. A stern action is needed.[reply]
10. --D-Boy 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. He's very dangerous for Wikipedia's neutrality. --Esimal (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. DAB is a good editor in many cases, but a bad admin because he abuses his powers in a biased manner and likes to revert without discussion in a dictatorial manner. His anti-Hindu bias in India related articles is obvious. -VJha (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his interview in the New York Times two weekends ago, Jimbo Wales, in talking about Wikipedia, said,

“

We aren't democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we're actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn't be writing.

”

That Dab is knowledgeable is something I can personally attest to from his edits on India-related pages. Whether he is polite or not is less relevant to the enterprise of building an encyclopedia. Politeness is important, but always secondary. Wikipedia has to decide, at the highest levels, whether politeness by persistent "idiots" (to quote Jimbo) should be more valued than occasional not-so-polite expression of exasperation by a knowledgeable person who the core community appreciates. Otherwise, I see a lot of time wasted by knowledgeable editors (like Dab) in bending over backwards to appease others who not only cannot write and are often ignorant, but who also unrelentingly verbalize the cock-eyed perspectives of their particular upbringing, education, or milieu in the name of universal truth, and yet can quote chapter and verse from the Wikipedia rule book on politeness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Folantin (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. see also Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. dab (𒁳) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Civility is important, but it does not trump all other considerations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Aryaman (☼) 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have known about this but deeceevoice is busy canvassing for people to come comment. The diffs above don't seem all that greivous; I find it laughable that editors criticize this user but buddy up with much worse characters. However, I'd welcome this being taken to arbitration. Deeceevoice and this fellow seem to have been butting heads for a while, and a couple looks around show that deeceevoice is back up to his good old tactics ("ROFLMBAO" etc). Arbitration would give Dbachmann the opportunity to catalogue deeceevoice's diffs and rule as to whether she has been aviding by the terms of her ongoing probation. And I could be all wet about here, maybe Bachmann is a bad character, the diffs above just dont seem to be problematic. Justforasecond (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. "I find it laughable that editors criticize this user but buddy up with much worse characters". That says what I've been trying to say. (Disclaimer: I don't know Justforasecond or the history of any edit wars he may have been involved in. But I endorse this particular comment). --Folantin (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this entire thread to the talk page because this isn't really the right place for threaded discussions. This comment is addressed to everyone who has been involved in this discussion. For an RfC we should just sign, or not sign and send comments to the talk page. Okay guys? futurebird (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Dbachmann if he would apologize twice [17][18] but he has refused and then he was nasty to me.

"If you just decided you wanted to do some random trolling, please find another talkpage to do that. "

(He calls me a troll?)

"How about you show your qualities in producing quality edits instead of lecturing me, and we'll get along just fine. I have not attacked anyone."

(Like I never make any quality edits...)

"You need to deliver encyclopedicity, even if you insist that you are "ethnic" and thus the rules magically don't apply to you"

(I never even said that. He has no idea what race I am, anyway.)

"am afraid that sufficiently advanced naiveté is truly indistinguishable from trolling, so I have no way of knowing which applies to you."

(Just plain mean. and I was trying to be nice.) JJJamal (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. deeceevoice (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC) This guy just either doesn't seem to get, or won't admit, the harm he's done to the project in abusing his admin status. He made similar dimissive and insulting comments to futurebird here,[19] and dismissive comments to Wikidudeman (already noted above) as well.[reply]
2. Please show diffs to attest to the exchange.Bakaman 02:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. futurebird (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC) agree that this kind of rudeness is not the way to respond to a request for an apology... (Even if you don't think you need to apologize.)[reply]
4. --D-Boy 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Parkwells (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Esimal (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had any bad experience in editing with dbachman in the very few edits where our paths met (probably, if I emember correctly, in the Talk:India page). Some editors have also attested dbackmann as an excellent editor with vast knowledge. However, comments and supposed views as outlined by the diffs provided by a number of users, notably these and these would raise the questions as to wether that knowledge and experience is being applied in an honest and unbiased way such as suitable for an encyclopaedia, or in a selective biased and intellectually dishonest way such as to promote or support ones own viewpoint. Moreover, earlier comments by a number of editors seem to show that he may not be aware as to what the admin responsibillities and priviledges are. If anything, it is these that need to be clarified.Rueben lys (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.