| Revision as of 19:30, 28 March 2023 view sourceFerahgo the Assassin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,664 edits →Statement by {Non-party}← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,349 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | ||
| {{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}} | {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | ||
| {{shortcut|WP:ARC}} | |||
| </noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | ||
| <noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | ||
| == Dbachmann == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] ] '''at''' 11:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Clovermoss}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|Dbachmann}} | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| * <strike></strike> | |||
| * <strike></strike> | |||
| * <strike></strike> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| === Statement by Clovermoss === | |||
| We don't have a community desysop process but I think it's clear that Dbachmann's conduct is unbecoming of an admin and this is the best option for doing something about that. Especially when they're saying stuff like and . If a new editor showed up and started making comments like that, I'm fairly certain they'd end up blocked. My understanding is that ANI isn't really the place to have a discussion about this, so I'm filing this case request. | |||
| :{{ping|Primefac}} Yes, a massive mistake on my part. I think I've fixed everything on that end but please let me know if there's anything else I need to do. I worked an overnight shift so I'm tired and probably going to head to bed soon, so there might be a delay in my responsiveness depending on how long I'm able to currently stay awake. ] ] 11:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{ping|Hammersoft}} What would we discuss exactly? I don't see any reasonable outcome when it seems clear they made up their mind about all of this a long time ago. Seriously, if a new editor was saying stuff like this, they'd be blocked as ]. I don't think this is premature given that ANI can't really do anything about admin conduct. Maybe they'd resign if given more time but honestly I don't want to leave something like this to chance. It only took one diff for Athaenara. Given their recent unblock and the cited "ideological" reasons, it's not like their current conduct isn't cause for concern. ] ] 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Harry's right, my intention was to show a pattern (and this isn't some one-off or something that'd suggest a compromised account situation). Given the diff in 2018 , I felt it was important. I was bringing up everything shown by others in the ANI thread because it seemed relevant. Dbachmann said his unblock was because Moneytrees considered the user an "ideological opponent". Just because stuff like this is ] doesn't make it okay. This stuff about how different human races on their extreme ends should be classified as ''seperate species'' and that this is somehow an "unremarkable" fact when it's definitively ] pushed by ] is concerning to say the least. ] ] 18:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Dbachmann === | |||
| === Statement by Moneytrees === | |||
| I’m currently marked as inactive on Arb stuff but I’ll recuse if I become active again, as this deals with a block I made, a subsequent unblock by Dbachmann that was not discussed in advance with me, and the community’s reversal of the unblock and endorsement of my original block. In the ANI discussion, additional issues were raised with Dbachmann regarding comments made over the years, a previous reminder from Arbcom, and several RfCs on them (although to be fair the RfCs seemed to have a lot of positive things to say in some places). Dbachmann has not responded to the ANI yet, but has continued to edit on Dewiki. Otherwise I don’t have anything to add other than what I said in my , and I probably won’t be commenting here too much. ]] 12:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Deepfriedokra {Non-party} === | |||
| *While I've expressed my concerns at the ANI thread, I think an ArbCom case is premature. We might get to the need for an ArbCom case, but the ANI thread has not played out. Dbachmann has not yet responded, and despite all the furor, the ANI thread is not yet 24 hours old.] (]) 12:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Fwiw, I left a note for DBachmann on their DEWIKI talk page. They have edited there since then. I left another message. Looks like I was premature in my assessment that a Case request is premature. ] (]) 13:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{yo|Floquenbeam}} To be fair, I left the second message after he had quit for the day. ] (]) 17:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Hammersoft {Non-party} === | |||
| Do I have this right? We have an ongoing ] that isn't even 24 hours old yet and Dbachmann hasn't even had a chance to respond and we're filing an RFAR? To support this RFAR we're using three diffs from '''2018, 2007, and 2005''' as evidence? The last "other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" before the current AN/I thread was from ''15 years ago''. We're digging up stuff from ''15 and 18 years ago''? I grant Dbachmann has become largely inactive on the project with less than 200 edits in the last year and less than 10 admin actions in the last three years. That by itself is enough to suggest resigning to Dbachmann. However, starting an RFAR given the thread, given such stale evidence, isn't the way forward. Clovermoss, you should take the opportunity to discuss this with Dbachmann, per dispute resolution processes as written at ]. You've never edited their talk page before the notification of this RFAR. This should be declined as rather premature. --] (]) 12:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Primefac, I stand by my statement that this is premature, and it ''should'' be echoed by many. I'm looking at Clovermoss' actions as inappropriate and premature. This shouldn't be encouraged. I don't mean to call out Clovermoss ''in particular'', but only as an example of recent trends that the moment an administrator makes the slightest misstep, RFARs tend to get filed because the community can't de-admin them. This is wholly wrong, and not in keeping with ] or ], both of which are POLICY. ArbCom has vested powers to handle disputes the community can't resolve on its own. It does not have the power to ignore or override policy. The idea that those of us stating this is premature are going to look silly if Dbachmann makes a reply that supports accepting a case is predictive rather than reactive, and discourages the community from commenting when it is clear the appropriate processes aren't being followed. This case being filed adds heat, not light. Discouraging the community from saying so is utterly wrong. This sort of behavior should not be encouraged, either from the community or ArbCom. | |||
| :As a thought experiment, let's say for the moment that you do accept this case. Let's say for the purposes of this experiment that the recent unblock was unquestionably bad. Your evidence is going to involve exactly ''one'' admin action that was out of line. To support this, the evidence page is going to include diffs from ''18 years ago''. Is this really the precedent that ArbCom wants to set? Any time an administrator makes a mistake they can expect an ArbCom case to be accepted against them ''and every single edit they ever make is going to be within scope''? Come on. If that is the precedent ArbCom wants to set, there's a lot of admins who will likely feel inclined to resign. --] (]) 13:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by TenOfAllTrades {Non-party} === | |||
| Dbachmann's sole response to any query about his actions was when he advised Moneytrees that . That was 25 hours ago, so we're clearly past 'tonight', regardless of which time zone Dbachmann may inhabit. | |||
| He has since been silent about his actions, and failed to respond to queries on his talk pages here and on dewiki. In that same time, he has made across a number of articles, over at least a couple of hours, across more than one editing session. (Indeed, he's made more dewiki edits in the last 24 hours than he has in all of 2023 on enwiki.) ](]) 14:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement from Harry Mitchell === | |||
| Ignore the old stuff. It establishes a pattern but it's not what this about. Admins are servants of the community when we're adminning {{small|yes, I still believe that after 13 years}}. Dbachmann has lost the trust and confidence of the community so his position is no longer tenable. ArbCom is the only body capable of desysopping an admin who won't resign voluntarily. It is incumbent upon you, ArbCom, to listen to the community when it expresses itself so clearly. | |||
| === Statement by Valereee {Non-party} === | |||
| If I'm not confusing the timestamps, Dbachmann has continued to edit at dewiki after DFO placed a notice on their talk there. I think the committee needs to consider taking the case. ] (]) 14:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Floq === | |||
| , ignoring DFO's talk page <s>messages</s> ''message'' there. Time to vote to accept, I think. --] (]) 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Guerillero}} consider the diffs from 2005 as establishing a clear explanation of Dbachmann's motivation. Dbachmann unblocked someone he agrees with in the topic area. It provides evidence that the racism-adjacent "subspecies of humans" theory was the motivating factor for the unblock, which would otherwise be somewhat inexplicable. ] (]) 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Black Kite === | |||
| Per the comments at Floq above and my comment at the dramaboard, this could very simply be resolved by someone indeffing DBachmann as NOTHERE. I'm quite happy to do it. Let us know, ArbCom. ] 18:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Levivich === | |||
| Why do only admins get the option to have their case scheduled at a time of their convenience during the next 3 months? I was just named a party to a case over my objection and nobody asked me if I'd like to take a break and have the case whenever I come back sometime in the next three months. I hope Arbcom stops offering this option to only admins. (Alternatively, I totally support just indef'ing as a normal admin action per ].) ] (]) 19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin {Non-party} === | |||
| I don't have an opinion about whether this action by Dbachmann, and the diffs from 15 years ago, warrant an arbitration case. However if Arbcom does open a case, I suggest that it should be about more than just Dbachmann, because there are other issues in relation to the same set of articles that should also be examined. I summarized some of these in an earlier arbitration request: ] In that request, {{U|CaptainEek}} and {{U|Barkeep49}} expressed concerns about how sources were being used with respect to this topic, but also said that particular request (made under the Fringe Science case) was not the correct way to address the issue. | |||
| The ] that led to AndewNguyen's block, and to the subsequent unblock by Dbachmann, was latest episode in the same underlying dispute about sourcing. The question is whether and to what extent ] can overrule typical sourcing practices on articles - particularly ], ], and the standards of reliability for academic sources that are defined at ]. This dispute over sourcing has been simmering (to use CaptainEek's term) for about three years, and was previously brought before Arbcom in and in . Although this case request is superficially about Dbachmann's use of admin tools, it also is another permutation of the same dispute that was brought before Arbcom twice before, and it would be beneficial if Arbcom could make sure it won't come back to them yet again a fourth time. | |||
| === Statement by {Non-party} === | |||
| Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. | |||
| <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
| === Dbachmann: Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| * | |||
| === Dbachmann: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Dbachmann: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> | |||
| *{{u|Clovermoss}}, did you mean to name {{noping|Dbachmann}} in this case? AndewNguyen is not an administrator, and the links you have provided seem to be related to Dbachmann. ] (]) 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I am going to kindly ask that uninvolved parties refrain from commenting too excessively here, especially in the vein of "this is premature" at the very least until Dbachmann has a chance to reply. This case request is not going anywhere, and a dozen "decline as premature" requests could potentially look very silly if Dbachmann comes back and makes a reply that ends up necessitating a case (see the various ADMINCOND cases from 2021-2022). Whether this case is accepted, declined, or closed by motion will largely depend on Dbachmann, so speculation is somewhat pointless while we wait. ] (]) 12:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:@Hammersoft, I am not saying that we should overly-encourage ARC filings for admin conduct issues, nor am I saying (or even predicting) that we will accept this case. What I am saying is that the Committee will very likely make no decision either way until Dbachmann has either replied ''or'' edits on other wikis long enough to indicate that they are trying to avoid the issue here. Of course, in the latter instance (as I ''did'' suggest in my closing sentence) we would likely open a suspended case as we have done a few times in the last handful of years. On the good-faith assumption that this is not the case and Dbachmann is simply taking some time to compose a response, what need do we have for pile-on opposition to this request purely because those individuals view it as premature? ] (]) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I generally tilt towards accepting cases around the possible misuse of administrator tools, as Arbcom is currently the only place that the community is able to remove the user-right. I appreciate {{u|Deepfriedokra}}'s point of view, but now that this case is here, I would like a response here from {{u|Dbachmann}}. Given the community's response at ANI, and and given that there have been no edits on English WP in 24 hours by Dbachmann - I do intend to accept a case unless I see a very good reason not to. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 12:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not declining as premature, but I think this needs a little more time to see if and how Dbachmann responds. I'd encourage them to read the signs, recognize that they are out of touch with community norms and messed up pretty badly here, and do the honorable thing by handing in the sysop bit voluntarily. ] (]) 12:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * While most of the evidence put forward here is stale, it gives us some background which appears to be relevant - though I'm not sure how much weight I'm willing to put on evidence from so long ago. The unblocking, however, coupled with Dbachmann's decline in activity , and lack of response, is of concern. I'm interested to hear what Dbachmann has to say about the incident before making a decision. If Dbachmann's explanation is not satisfactory, I'm thinking that a discussion leading to a motion might serve the community and Dbachmann better than a case. ] (]) 14:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *As I begin writing this remark we have just barely crossed the 24 hour mark for the ANI thread and we haven't even come to 24 hours for my comment suggesting that an intimation that they would lose sysop was premature. Outside of brightline situations (which this is not), 24 hours seems like the amount of time that should pass without a response before we consider whether a step like a case request is necessary. I genuinely want to hear what Dbachmann has to say and if I thought they should resign I would be taking action as an arb to accept the case request or even remove them rather than waiting nor do I want to presuppose what my next action would be after their response. However, my patience is going to be limited here given that Dbachmann has had time for Misplaced Pages, just not English Misplaced Pages. If you take what you know (or can be expected to know) is a controversial action you need to be ready to defend it. If not your privledge as a volunteer is to just do nothing which I am prepared to say is what Dbachmann should have done here. ] (]) 14:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{re|Black Kite}} no policy prevents an admin from using their administrator toolkit just because someone is before ArbCom (especially at the case request stage). I myself blocked someone before the committee at our last serious case request before this and I can think of a number of other cases resolved in the same manner. However, I'm having a hard time with a unilateral "NOTHERE" in this case. While some of the ] in the policy initially seem to apply here, upon a complete reading I can't see it. For instance {{tqq|Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention}} initially seems right but then it notes (in part) {{tqq|A user may espouse extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". However, some activities are by nature inconsistent with editing access, such as legal threats against other users, harassment, or actions off-site that suggest a grossly divergent intention or gross undermining of the project as a whole.}} We don't have legal threats or harassment. We maybe have actions off-wiki but so far none of those have been presented into evidence, we are just reading it into comments Dbachmann has made (not unfairly mind you). I could do this with a couple of others as well. Levivich's pointing towards ] (as I've typed this) at least feels like a better rationale. ] (]) 19:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{re|Levivich}} while I understand why you're saying what you've said I think you're missing some crucial differences. From my perspective we're actually extending admins less rights than you. First, the remedy (desysop) is coming before the case and stays in effect through the end of the case. In the case to which you're a party ArbCom has passed no remedy against you which you will have to convince us to reverse. Second, cases that have multiple parties offer a different kind of flexibility than cases that have a single party like this one. Finally, you've said that you aren't going to participate much (or at all) in the case to which you're a party. I am unaware of any Arb saying "that's a bad idea" to you or suggesting you will be sanctioned for that choice. In this case we're doing the opposite - sanctioning precisely because of that choice. ] (]) 19:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *We certainly wouldn't accept a case based on one bad unblock, but it seems the discussion of this ill-considered admin action has unearthed other issues with this administrator. I read the ANI thread last night and while I am also willing to wait a ''little'' bit longer for a response from Dbachmann, my initial inclination is to accept the case. ] (]) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * Waiting for statements, but I am not thrilled by the inclusion of diffs from 2005 in the complaint. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ====Motion: Open and suspend case==== | |||
| {{Ivmbox|1=The "Dbachmann" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months. | |||
| If {{user|Dbachmann}} should return to active editing on the English Misplaced Pages during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to {{arbcom-en}} or at the ]. Dbachmann is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case. | |||
| If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Dbachmann resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Dbachmann shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Dbachmann may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful ].}} | |||
| =====Support===== | |||
| =====Oppose===== | |||
| =====Abstain===== | |||
| =====Arbitrator discussion===== | |||
| *I'm willing to be a bit more patient here. But it seems that some of my colleagues are ready to move (and with new editing at dewiki after the case request I can't blame them) and so I thought it helpful to put up this motion that has been our recent template in situations where an admin ignores a case request. ] (]) 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I should note that I would expect, at minimum, to want a topic ban in addition to the desysop. ] (]) 19:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.