Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.
Contents |
[edit] The parties
User:Antifinnugor, petitioner
v.
User:Dbachmann, respondent
[edit] Statement of complaint
Purpose of this arbitration request: User:Dbachmann's fraud, vandalization and abuse of his status as administrator.
[edit] The HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
User:Antifinnugor tries to correct and improve the page, [[1]] in November-December 2004. The correction is problematic due to a small clique of users (in fact 2), who quite unscrupulously protect the page's erroneous statements and delete all improvements and all critique, while defame the criticizers, refuse to put links to critical web pages and delete such links with cynical comments or with no comments at all. See the appendix for details on this.
[edit] Evidence
Evidence of the problems with User:Dbachmann.
User:Dbachmann's FRAUDICAL statement: User:Dbachmann says: I will support the creation of an article, or a section, on criticisms of the FU-hypothesis 4. Dec, 2004 [[2]]
User:Antifinnugor trusts him, and writes the page. About 3-4 editors help him while preparing the page, to get it factual correct and as neutral as possible. The page can now be seen under [[3]] (The non user page is unfortunately vandalized at the moment).
Votes for deletion: FRAUD User:Dbachmann is the first, who votes for deletion. He completely changed his mind in 7 days! 11 Dec 2004 vd decision 14.Dec, 2004 - editors decide NOT to delete [[4]]
User:Dbachmann Wants to BUTCHER the page, uses MILITANT and UNFRIENDLY tone because the deletion action was unsuccessful: User:Dbachmann: AFU's article will have to be butchered and rebuilt from scratch anyway. dab (ᛏ) 16:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) [[5]]
User:Dbachmann: I wanted to "butcher" ... 17 Dec 2004 [[6]]
User:Dbachmann looks for ACCOMPLICES and ANIMATES others to VANDALISM: you may want to help turn Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups back into a redirect... dab (ᛏ) 11:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) Looking for an accomplice for vandalism, bachman? Antifinnugor 17:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) [[7]]
User:Dbachmann redirects = vandalizes: 18:28, 22 Dec 2004 [[8]]
User:Dbachmann redirects = vandalizes: 18:29, 22 Dec 2004 [[9]]
User:Dbachmann reverts=vandalizes: 17:29, 27 Dec 2004 [[10]]
User:Dbachmann reverts=vandalizes: 17:17, 27 Dec 2004 [[11]]
User:Dbachmann also intensively vandalizes the in the mean time deleted page, [[12]], the vandalization is the same type as above.
User:Dbachmann wants explicitely no consensus in subject vandalizing: User:Dbachmann: seeking consensus (admittedly hopeless, in this case) dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) [[13]]
User:Dbachmann says, he continues vandalizing: User:Dbachmann: the reverts will just continue, now that somebody has unprotected it. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) [[14]]
[edit] Remark:
Fraudulent Administrators, [[15]] who tend to vandalization and support of cliques can cause, that originally useful facilities, like [[16]] became useless, because the vandalized pages get "accidentally" protected. Their activity also causes, that dogmatic, disinformative and factually erroneous pages, like [[17]] get more and more dogmatic, while their critique and factual improvements get either deleted, or if their attempt for deletion is not successful, permanently vandalized.
If such fraudulent and vandalistic administrators build a clique (it can be as small as 2 such persons), they work even more "effective", and the wikipedia gets dogmatic and disinformative, little useful.
[edit] Appendix:
The name of the unscrupulous, not arguing, just deleting editors is User:Mustafaa and User:Hippopha�. The others are not uncivilized, and more correct. Examples of the unscrupulous deletion activities of User:Mustafaa and User:Hippopha� , whose activity User:Dbachmann cynically called "janitorial" activities: User:Dbachmann I am glad for Hippo's janitorial reverts [[18]]
User:Mustafaa uses rather uncivilized and cynical comments:
User:Mustafaa's comment: rv more AFU [[19]]
User:Mustafaa's comment: remove - AFU has yet to convince anyone else that this article is "in need of attention", [[20]]
User:Mustafaa's comment: remove Antifinnougric false claims [[21]]
User:Mustafaa's comment: this piece of junk should have been deleted [[22]]
User:Hippopha� He uses cynical, but not uncivilized comments.
User:Hippopha� 's comment: several corrections) [[23]]
User:Hippopha� 's comment: minor corrections [[24]] For example [[25]] indicates, that User:Hippopha� reverts changes of others, without remarking that he reverts.
Here a complete review of the discussed page's history: [[26]]
One really helpful and kind editor, User:Derek_Ross moderates a while, but probably due to the aggressive tone and behaviour of the above mentioned 2 editors or due to other reasons he then unfortunately stops moderating. [[27]]
[edit] Statement by affected party
accusing me of vandalism, fraud, and abuse of admin privileges after the arbcom found no such evidence is bordering on the personal, and is certainly not good behaviour. I am looking forward to AFU dropping his hopeless 'feud' against me, and to his next constructive suggestion on an article talk page. dab (ᛏ) 14:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decision
[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
[edit] Temporary injunction (none)
[edit] Final decision (none yet)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
