Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.


Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

[edit] Motion for dismissal

1) Case dismissed for a lack of sufficient evidence.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC) I don't see a case here.
  2. Paul August ☎ 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Per UC
Oppose:
  1. There's plenty of material here already, and promises of more to come as well. Kirill 02:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Kirill. FloNight (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Seems to be quite a bit now Fred Bauder (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. FloNight (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Paul August ☎ 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. FloNight (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Paul August ☎ 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Basic.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. FloNight (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Paul August ☎ 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Administrators

4) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. FloNight (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Paul August ☎ 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Administrators: use of administrative tools in a dispute

5) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. FloNight (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Paul August ☎ 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Rollback

6) The rollback tool allows administrators to quickly perform reverts. It should be used with caution and restraint, in part because it does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. The rollback tool should not be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit.

Support:
  1. Adding this per UninvitedCompany's comments below about the nature of rollback. I agree that the real issue with it is not so much that it is an admin-only tool but a discussionless tool; there is long-standing consensus that it is to be used only for reverts that require no explanation, such as simple vandalism. I don't think this is significantly different, just more to the point. Proposing this in tandem with finding of fact 4.1 below. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. With the caveat (not applicable to this case) that when a user has made a large number of good-faith but clearly incorrect and inappropriate edits (especially using automatic tools), it may sometimes be appropriate to revert them using rollback provided that an explanation is provided on the user's talkpage before doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Kirill 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Though I would consider such use permissible if an explanation is provided on the talk page or some other obvious place.
  7. If obvious vandalism is not involved, an explanation should be made somewhere Fred Bauder (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Rollback is a form of revert; as with all reverts (or significant edits) explanation matters in the editorial process.
  10. This is good, yes. James F. (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The present dispute originated in editorial conflicts over the content of the Afrocentrism article and subsequently spread to other venues.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Second choice; prefer 1.1 as more complete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Second choice. FloNight (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Second choice. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Second choice. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Second choice as per others. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Second choice. bainer (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Paul August ☎ 15:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Locus of dispute

1.1) This case involves two sets of disputes. One of these originated in editorial conflicts over the content of the Afrocentrism article and subsequently spread to other venues, while the other arises from editing of articles relating to the Indian subcontinent. A common element is the involvement of administrator Dbachmann (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) in both areas.

Support:
  1. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 02:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. First choice. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. First choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. A little better Fred Bauder (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) First choice. Specificity.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Bakasuprman

2) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has habitually engaged in edit-warring ([1]), unapologetic incivility ([2]), grossly inappropriate commentary ([3]), and attempts to use Wikipedia as an ideological battleground ([4]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Despite some strong contributions as well, regrettably the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Committee has always considered the behavior of all parties. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per Brad, Mackensen. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Valid finding of fact. Sadly. Not to note everything in sight, but no basis to ignore the obvious by a party. Not just one person involved.
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) This party is only tangentially involved in the case. Futurebird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) opened a case against Dbachman, and now we're going after Bakasuprman based on Dbachman's statement. I believe we should contain the scope of cases rather than going after everyone in sight.
  2. Agree with UC. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 16:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Per UC.
  4. Better way to go Fred Bauder (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Bakasuprman was fairly added as a party to the case only shortly after it was opened, but in the end there was not sufficient evidence presented on Bakasuprman in this case to make such a finding. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deeceevoice

3) Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was previously the subject of an Arbitration case (Deeceevoice), in which she was made subject to several editing restrictions as a result of her violations of Wikipedia policy. Since the case, Deeceevoice has continued to treat Wikipedia as an ideological battleground ([5], [6], [7]), and has been blocked multiple times for edit-warring and incivility ([8]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Committee has always considered the behavior of all parties. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. As above. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Factually accurate note on a party to the case. Block log noted but not given significant weight in this finding's support; whilst the log is long, it also almost entirely dates back to 2006. In the last 15 months DeeCeeVoice's block log is one 24 hr block in February and a block in November that was later reversed as possibly unfairly long. Not helpful to me, as evidence of any kind of behavior in that time.
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Per finding 2.
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 16:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Per above.
  4. Better way to go Fred Bauder (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Deeceevoice was fairly added as a party to the case only shortly after it was opened, but in the end there was not sufficient evidence presented on Deeceevoice in this case to make such a finding. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dbachmann

4) Dbachmann (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has misused his administrative tools by protecting pages on which he was involved in content disputes ([9]) and by employing administrative rollback to revert content edits ([10]).

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. I do not find these incidents typical of Dbachmann's work as an administrator, but they did occur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. As Newyorkbrad. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per Brad. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. I also agree with Brad. Uninvited's concerns are valid, but for my mind go more to the issue of remedies. --bainer (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Changing to second choice in favour of 4.1. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Per Brad.
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) These actions appear isolated and don't merit our involvement. See my comments below (remedy section) on administrative rollback.
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Dbachmann

4.1) Dbachmann (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has repeatedly reverted content edits without offering any explanation, by way of the rollback tool (evidence) and has misused his administrative tools by protecting pages on which he was involved in content disputes (evidence).

Support:
  1. Adding this as an alternative to the above, per UninvitedCompany's comments below about the nature of rollback. I agree that the real issue with it is not so much that it is an admin-only tool but a discussionless tool; there is long-standing consensus that it is to be used only for reverts that require no explanation, such as simple vandalism. I don't think this is significantly different, just more to the point. Proposing this in tandem with principle 6 above. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Acceptable in lieu of 4 (no preference). I note that this case has been pending for 5 weeks. It would be of interest whether Dbachmann has stopped using the rollback tool in the manner criticized in this draft decision. If he has, and agrees not to resume, then the necessity of a formal admonition on the subject is reduced. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    First choice, though by a slight margin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Looking through Dbachmann's contribution since the case opened I see times that he used the tool to revert changes that did not appear to be vandalism, including some reverting in the last few weeks. He did seem to be using edit summaries most of the time, so I think he now understands the importance if he did not in the past. FloNight (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Kirill 03:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. A little better Fred Bauder (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Marginally better.
  9. This is good, yes. James F. (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Not suitable as a replacement for FoF #4; the protection issue it omits is more serious than the rollback one. Kirill 17:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, I missed that. I've added the protection wording to this from above, the people presently supporting this have already supported it above so I don't anticipate a problem in changing it. --bainer (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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

[edit] Bakasuprman banned

1) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. The evidence presented by Moreschi, cited in the decision above, reflects a persistent and varied pattern of inappropriate user conduct and edits on Bakasuprman's part. Bakasuprman must understand that his misbehavior is jeopardizing, if it has not already forfeited, his continued ability to participate in the project. However, he also has a record of positive contributions, including the creation of at least 30 new pages. I would accord him a final opportunity to conform his editing to all Wikipedia standards and would therefore impose a comprehensive editing and civility restriction at this point in lieu of a ban per 1.1 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Outside the scope of the case.
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 16:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Better to bring a separate case, if justified Fred Bauder (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Prefer 1.1. FloNight (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Per abstention on the finding of fact. --bainer (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bakasuprman restricted

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

Support:
  1. First choice as explained above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Second choice; I doubt we'll see reform at this late stage. Kirill 02:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. First choice, as long as we have the enforcement ruling with the escalation to an one year ban if the problems continue with the restrictions. FloNight (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. First choice. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Appropriate. Conduct issues can be addressed. Willing to tip this to 5-4 as it stands.
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Outside the scope of the case.
    The scope of the case is what we want it to be. ;-) FloNight (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    The key is fair notice to the involved users. I believe that in this case Kirill specifically advised both Bakasuprman that they were being added to the case, several weeks ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Better to bring a separate case, if justified Fred Bauder (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Per abstention on the finding of fact. --bainer (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deeceevoice banned

2) Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. With regret, as I certainly do not take pleasure in stilling this, or any, editor's expression of her point of view. I would consider a lesser sanction if Deeceevoice expressed a willingness to address the concerns raised in this and the prior decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Brad, I would prefer a lesser sanction, but regretfully I do not feel it would be effective. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per Brad, I do not see another solution as the situation now exists. FloNight (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Outside the scope of the case.
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Better to bring a separate case, if justified Fred Bauder (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Per abstention on the finding of fact. --bainer (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) A difficult choice. DeeCeeVoice is already subject to indefinite personal attack parole, user page prohibition and general probation. These should readily provide enough tools to handle any disruptive activity, including POV or unwarranted advocacy issues. The community has not seen fit to issue blocks with the frequency given in 2006, nor are there widespread claims that these remedies are insufficient or ineffective. Prefer to rely on the existing remedies which the community has not indicated are inadequate. At the same time, not willing to endorse that the degree of activity and its nature may not warrant some form of long term action. Hence abstain. Leaving it to the community if any behaviors (present or future) require use of existing remedies or a new case.

[edit] Dbachmann admonished

3) Dbachmann (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is admonished to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Although I would prefer to acknowledge his good work as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. We need to deal with these issues as they come to our attention. Not doing so sends the wrong message, I think.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Whatever the merits of rollback (convenience is probably most accurate), the convention has been to date that administrators treat it as a tool, not to be used for ordinary content reversions. Not least due to lack of explanation left, which is unhelpful. Support not because rollback matters (I agree with UC here) but because of 1/ the general trend of which it is another example, that the editor needs to understand communal norms apply to all, and 2/ the use of protection in a content dispute is more serious and admonishment is appropriate.
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Minor matter not meriting a response from us; also, see my comment on rollback below.
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Given the circumstances I think "admonished" is perhaps too harsh. However reverting good faith content edits without explanation is inappropriate and needs to be discouraged and I agree with Flo that we need to send an appropriate message here, so I have proposed, as an alternative, 3.1 below.
  4. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I don't believe that there has ever been a clear consensus that rollback is anything more than a convenience. I certainly don't think it's in the same category as page protection, deletion, blocking, or their converses. Given the widespread availability of equivalent rollback tools that are available to non-administrators, I don't think we should legitimatize the thinking that administrators are restricted in how they can use rollback. If the issue is that he's making reverts without an explanation, say, on the talk page, then that deserves its own findings and remedies, just as it would for a non-administrator using an edit summary of "rv" and leaving nothing on the talk page. If he's leaving an adequate explanation of his reverts, then I don't see what the problem is. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All users do not have access to these rollback type tools. At least some of them require the approval of a group leader, and I believe that access to the tools has been disabled in some cases where abuse is noted. So, I think they are perceived by the Community as more than a convenience. FloNight (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dbachmann reminded

3.1) Dbachmann (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. (Second choice). FloNight (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. Kirill 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. First choice. Given that we have arbitrators who find the use of the tool acceptable, we should err on the side of the less critical wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    The issue is using admin tools to protect articles in topics of interest with their preferred content. This warrants an admonishment as administrators are expected to know prior to using their tools for the first time, I think. FloNight (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. First choice Fred Bauder (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Support as second choice to 3.
  9. James F. (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Administrative tools (protection) in a dispute where there is editorial content involvement. Rollback is not the main issue. Prefer 3.
    Support but as 2nd choice FT2 (Talk | email) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Article probation

4) The Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians articles are placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned from the article and its talk page by any uninvolved administrator. Any editor that continues to edit in violation of such a ban may be blocked as specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support as to both articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. FloNight (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Paul August ☎ 16:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Although noting probably too narrow, and some kind of "including disputes by (list of users) on other Afrocentrism-related topics" should be added. I fear we may see this dispute area move to articles outside these two named ones which impinge on the topic.
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comment/question:
  • Fine with me. Kirill 22:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. FloNight (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Paul August ☎ 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

  • All principles and findings pass (1.1 Locus is adopted based on conditional votes)
  • Remedy 3 (Dab admonished) and 4 (Article probation) pass. Bans or edit restrictions for Bakasuprman and Deeceevoice currently fall 2 and 1 votes short. Thatcher 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • With the majority changing, principle 6 (rollback) currently does not pass with only six votes, nor does findings 2 (Bakasuprman) and 3 (Deeceevoice), also with six each. Remedy 3 (Dbachmann admonished) also has six at present. Daniel 01:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: As of now, passing are principles 1 to 7 6, findings of fact 1.1 and 4 (although the late addition finding of fact 4.1 is almost at the seven votes required, and appears from first reading to have a stronger "first choice" preference), and remedies 3 and 4 (with remedy 3.1 being in a similar situation to finding of fact 4.1). Daniel (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no principle 7. With my vote, finding 4.1 now supersedes finding 4. Paul August ☎ 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Gah, thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close. Let's all do a final vote as the case now stands and close this case with or without sanctions for Bakasuprman and/or Deeceevoice. FloNight (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Added mine. And okay to close if others feel ready. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Close. bainer (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Close. James F. (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)