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)

I don't understand this comment. FoFs are "findings of fact" ? What is being abandon in favor of a watered-down version... of what? Can someone expand and explain? futurebird (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "discretionary sanctions" proposed here are actually much less discretionary than the sanctions adopted in the Macedonia case, for no apparent reason. Kirill 19:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so after the acres of evidence of evil on all sides, the rememdies are "play nice"? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole case was a waste of time anyway (an impression confirmed by looking at some of the nonsense on the Workshop page). --Folantin (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree to a degree, although the behavior of some of the other parties involved did strike me as at best questionable, and possibly sanctionable. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks, I think you are free to propose your own solutions, if you wish. This case is not over, and I disagree that it is a waste of time. The issue of administrative conduct and responsibility are very important for the future of the 'pedia. If we want people to edit in good faith and follow rules, admins need to set a good example. Admins are not exempt from the rules. John, I don't know if I agree with your proposal about areas of conflict-- In the case of the Afrocentrism are, there was not a serious conflict or disruption until Dbachmann arrived. Editors were engaged in a constructive discussion and citing sources. I don't think that article needs any special sanctions, I think we need some kind of mechanisms for reporting bad behavior on the part of admins. And I think we need more clairity about who is blocked for what when there is a content dispute or edit war an one of the parties is an admin. futurebird (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If folks could have conducted an RfC-admin and kept the attacks and bad faith out of it, this might be over. All we are getting in this arbcomm hearing is an RfC minus the trolling. If that's what it takes for people to behave in an adult manner, maybe some folks need to rethink thier partcipation on en.wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this arbcom because Dbachmann refused to take any of the criticism I offered in seriously or treat the valid concerns of the users who brought the RFC with respect. I sincerely hope this more "serious" forum will bring a more serious response. And frankly, in light of his actions that followed, by the contempt and lack responsiveness he has shown through both of these process, I feel that we need some kind of action to be taken to prevent the kind of meltdown that occurred on the Afrocentrism page. I mean when you watch an admin insulting everyone left and right and edit waring over a topic that he doesn't even really understand all that well-- and then the USER is the one who's banned? For a year??? Forget it. You know something is seriously wrong. Dbachmann insulted me repeatedly because the evidence I was bringing to the talk page and the questions that I asked failed to agree with his POV about Afrocentrism. That's not acceptable. I'm sorry. This is the issue we need to address. futurebird (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments. You say he refused to take the criticism seriously. Please indicate how you saw this. I believe from the responses I saw that he did take the criticism seriously, but that he did not necessarily think it was particularly important. Second, you have stated above that you believe that admins should be held to a different standard of behavior. This tends to be true. However, you have yet to quantify how his conduct was such that he necessarily must be removed as an admin. That would seem to be required. I also note how you have clearly yourself very likely violated WP:AGF regarding Dbachmann's conduct in this matter. It is not required that he apologize for conduct he considers not particulary objectionable. Nor is it required that he respond to each point made against him. It certainly is not required that he apologize or that he somehow say "I'm sorry". In fact, I am myself aware of no such standards for conduct for admins. If you wish to change the standards of conduct for admins, then probably the best place to do so would be to propose a policy to that effect. I am all but certain however that this particular group will not on its own issue a new statement of policy in response to this, or any other, grievance. Also, you are raising any number of issues which are, at best, peripheral to the discussion which has so far taken place regarding this matter. I think the old phrase regarding much of your comments above would be "irrelevant and immaterial". Also, possibly, "inadmissable" might be added, possibly until and unless you specifically indicate what specific codes of conduct he violated, and, possibly, that in at least some of the instances such was done that he did not do so in response to any ongoing misconduct of others. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, but I think it's entirely justifiable to dismiss the concerns of anyone who signed on to Bakasuprman's statement at the RfC. I'll assume that everyone missed the wikilink to the Nazi article when they first read the statement--I only noticed it on my second read-through; but that's only the most obvious example of the statement's bad faith. (And yes, the link to Nazi is still in the statement.)

As for Dbachmann's supposed misconduct as an admin, the only evidence presented that he's (allegedly) misused admin tools relates to rollback. Everything else regards his conduct as an ordinary editor. Charges that he's abused his position as an administrator are a red herring (except for the rollback stuff, and I don't think the evidence shows that he's misused it). --Akhilleus (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've only just seen that Nazi link, Akhilleus. I'd like to see this case dismissed but I'd say if anybody had charges to answer here it's Bakasuprman. I see no evidence of admin abuse. I haven't look at all the diffs, but I do know the background to many of the rollbacks Nearly Headless Nick listed at length and I can say that some of the Armenian edits there are simply Dbachmann removing dubious information added by an anti-Semitic troll called Alex Mond who went on to harrass Dab on his talk page [1]. So, according to his enemies, Dab is both a Nazi and a Jew! (Actually, he's neither of course, but who needs facts when you've got a vendetta to pursue?). This case is nothing but a collection of personal grudges and should be thrown out. --Folantin (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it sort of seems like some of you are trying to change the subject. Can we stay focused on what Dbachmann did an said? Dbachmann insulted me repeatedly because the evidence I was bringing to the talk page and the questions that I asked failed to agree with his POV about Afrocentrism. That's not acceptable. futurebird (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not changing the subject. You feel that Dbachmann has been dismissive of your concerns. But you endorsed a statement that accuses him of "pernicious racism", says that he's a "noxious menace", and implies that he's a Nazi. It's hard to see how you can have a constructive dialogue after that point. And it's hard to sympathize with your feeling that you've been insulted, when you're endorsing far more serious insults yourself. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed this here. I said that I don't really know anything about Baka's claims, I've said, (and even said at the time) that I thought it was odd to dredge up such old material when I endorsed the statement. Now that we have that out of the way, let's look at what happened at the Afrocentrism page recently.

What did I do to deserve the contempt and insults hurled at me by Dbachmann... other than being on the wrong side of his personal POV of a subject? This is bad behavior for any user. Can we acknowledge that? Do we really want admins who act like this and see nothing wrong with (in Dbachmann's own words) "necessary" editing waring? And how open and fair is an encyclopedia when a user is banned for year for just about nothing, while at the same time an admin is bullying that user and others and then nothing happens to the admin. It's a double standard and totally unfair. futurebird (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that endorsing Bakasuprman's comment was a mistake, I urge you to strike through your endorsement on the RfC. Otherwise, you're still on record as supporting his comments.

As for Deeceevoice, you seem to be missing the fact that she's under probation from this case. Because of that, she's not going to be treated the same as other Wikipedia editors, and her behavior is going to be closely scrutinized.

I'll say again that Dbachmann's admin status has nothing to do with this dispute--you haven't shown a single instance of Dbachmann misusing administrative powers. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Deeceevoice's ban is concerned, while she may have been on probation, the "good cause" for her ban has been questioned, and her ban lifted, suggesting the ban didn't have that good a cause. Let me quote from WP:Probation: Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access.. And I think it should be crystal clear by now that the bulk of the issues raised against Dbachmann's behavior have to do with his behavior as an editor; and to the best of my knowledge, he still needs to answer for his behaviour as an editor.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who's responsible for Deeceevoice's ban (now lifted)? I don't see that Dbachmann participated in that discussion at all, so I'm having trouble understanding why you're quoting from WP:Probation above. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(out dent) I know many of the users on both sides of the camp here and I respect all of them but I'm uninvolved in this dispute. And as a completely outsider I had to review everything just to get-up to speed in this conversation and after that I'm left totally clueless as to the link between Deeceevoice's block and Dbachmann behaviour. The issues are unrelated. SLR was correct in unblocking but what has it got to do with Dbachmann - he didn't have any part in the block discussion. How is it relevant to a discussion of him "as an editor" or as an admin? Either this case is about Deeceevoice or Dbachmann and either this case is about Dbachmann's use of privileges as an admin or it is not. This purposes of this RFAR are confused and confusing. The points being made are being obscured by the scope of this discussion and the disconnections between the issues. The Deeceevoice issue should just have been brought to WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is creating a fissure in the logic of this case that this whole discussion is in danger of falling into. Again I will ask exactly why and how is Deeceevoice's block in any way related--Cailil ^talk 20:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to answer this one as succintly and as factually as possible. Dbachmann's editorial altercations on Afrocentrism were first directed at Deeceevoice, even though they included several other editors (myself included). This situation, escalated, and diffs therefrom are the material which was used to impose a ban on Deeceevoice. The ban was imposed incidentally because Dbachmann asked another admin which he knew to look into the matter, and also because he pointed out to an ald Arbcom case where Deeceevoice was put on probabtion, even though 1)the case was nearly two years old and 2)Deeceevoice hadn't been blocked in over a year. This is also brought up because one of the arbitrators said they wanted to review the behavior of all parties involved in the dispute, and specifically requested that Deeceevoice be included as an active party. Also, the dispute, IMHO, has more to do with Dbachmann's conduct as an editor (POV-pushing, edit-warring, incivility, personal attacks) than whatever misuse of admin tools he may have done.

Here's hoping this clarifies the situation some; if there are still questions you feel are unanswered, please feel free to bring them up and I will answer them to the best of my abilities.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2007

Sorry Ramdrake that actually hasn't resolved the issue. Dbachmann can't be responsible for Deecevoice's behaviour. If her posts were used against her, its her own fault.

The problem with the logic of correlating the ban/block of Deecevoice and Dbachmann's editting is that Dbachmann was not involved in the decision to ban or to block. He did the right thing by asking an uninvolved admin to review the situation and Moreschi's call to topic ban Deecevoice was Moreschi's call (and I assume he brought it to WP:ANI so it could be discussed/reviewed). I agree with SLR's decision to unblock but the whole Deecevoice ban/block issue is off on a tangent. Nowhere in the sanctions imposed on her was Dbachmann involved - he stayed out of it. Therefore it's a separate issue.

I've read over this case and the evidence twice now, and I understand why (as a user involved in the dispute) Deecevoice is being named in the case - but her ban/block is irrelevant, or at least separate. Again IMO that issue should be redeemable by WP:ANI--Cailil ^talk 23:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not holding Dbachmann responsible for Deeceevoice's behaviour. Her behaviour is her own. But on a comparative basis, I find Deeceevoice's behaviour more acceptable in this dispute than Dbachmann's (not commenting on her long comments on the RfAr though - sort of lost track there). I guess my only point in this is, if DCV's behaviour is examined, it should be examined on a par with Dbachmann's (without the added inherent prejudice of the antiquated probation, or of the reversed ban). And I would agree with you that DCV's behaviour is a totally separate issue from Dbachmann's behaviour; maybe this is why I'm having a hard time understanding why she was forcibly named as an active party in this arbitration, especially if the full circumstances surrounding what happened after the meltdown at Afrocentrism (subsequent ban and reversal) is excluded. Maybe you can help me understand what is being inquired here?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's difficult to understand. The dispute(s) that lead to the case involve both Afrocentrism and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann_3, and the behavior of several editors who contributed to those pages. That gives us a list of involved editors; once those people are named as parties to the case, any aspect of their behavior on Wikipedia is potentially something that the arbitrators might consider. I emphasize "might"--it's always hard to tell what the arbitrators are going to feel is important when they craft their final decision. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also my understanding; the only part I have a problem understanding is the affirmation that the bungled one-year ban against Deeceevoice is considered irrelevant to thie arbitration, as it was one of the main consequences of the meltdown at Afrocentrism. I hope this is a tad clearer.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm beginning to see it. Thank you for your generous replies. This is how I understand the logic for including the sanctions against Deecevoice, and forgive me if I misunderstand them: 1) other users blame Dbachmann for DV's block/ban - even though he didn't hit the button. 2) The block/ban of DV caused and escalation of others' dispute with Dbachmann. 3) The block/ban may not have been to the letter of policy. The logic for the issue's inclusion is there alright.

On issue 1) - this seems unresolvable to me. Dbachmann did not block DV. Other users feel he is to blame for it. That circle will be impossible to square.

On issue 2) - looking at the sanctions against DV as a factor escalating the dispute between other editors will be a double edged sword - but I understand why you're including it. How everyone else responded to DV's block is the major issue I see in this - am I on the right track?

On issue 3) - this will be a tough call. I think the sanctions should have been discussed before implementation (seems to me that WP:CSN would have been useful here). Nevertheless, I don't see a ruling saying DV was improperly sanctioned help either side here.

Thanks for the replies - that cleared the logic up for me. I hope I summarized it correctly above - if not please do correct me--Cailil ^talk 15:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you hit the nail right on the head for #2 and #3, however, I don't personnally hold Dbachmann directly responsible for DCV's ban, although I think that, perhaps unwittingly, he pushed all the right buttons to get her banned: 1)he started the revert war, 2)he pointed out the undead (2 years) ArbCom case, and 3)he requested another admin (who doesn't hide his sympathy for him) to look into the case. That, plus DCV's ban reversal was basically dropped like yesterday's news without really any official status, so I figured, since it is at least tangentially revelant to the case, a ruling that it wasn't appropriate to mete out this harsh a sanction might be a good thing to come out of this case. Please take note that I wouldn't have dreamt of adding this to the case if DCV hadn't been named a party.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]