Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Comments by uninvolved editors before the case was opened
[edit] Statement by Folantin
I will add more later if necessary, but I think this case should be thrown out as a waste of time. I would certainly like to note that Futurebird's statement at the top of this RfAr is false: "I also let the other users who were involved in the RfC know." I was involved in the RfC and I have not been informed. The users Futurebird has informed all seem to share a similar point of view to hers. --Folantin 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise I have little or nothing to add to the statement I made at the RfC, especially the comments "Dbachmann is merely trying to enforce Wikipedia's core policies. After all, we're supposed to be creating an encyclopaedia here" and "More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated" - with the proviso that I believe this case has little to do with Dab's role as an admin. Unfortunately, instead of applying policy with the aim of helping build an encyclopaedia - as Dab does - it seems all too many admins have got time to waste on farcical matters like this ANI fracas[1] over the humorous essay User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. Under such circumstances, I don't think we can afford even considering desysopping Dbachmann. --Folantin 11:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Moreschi
Any suggestion that Dbachmann has abused his sysop bit is a ludicrous falsehood. Check his logs, he doesn't use the bit (in terms of blocks, protects, deletes) enough to abuse it. Other matters apart, of which I will say more later, this is not a question of admin abuse. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here's one idea, though - accept the case, relabel it from Dbachmann to Bakasuprman, whose comments at the RFC were appalling, and ban Baka as a disruptive editor. I, and other admins, will be delighted to provide plentiful evidence of time-wasting on Bakasuprman's part. Is this an option, or do I have to file a separate Bakasuprman case myself? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Fullstop
As I noted on the RFC, dbachmann's behaviour may not always be exemplary, but there is nothing in it that is fundamentally detrimental to WP.
Nor is there anything in his actions that warrants treatment as an arbitration case. All but one of the points raised in this RFAR have significant deficits:
- "he refuses a scheme aimed at resolving edit-warring" is not correct. What dbachmann is here (which is, to better demonstrate context, one paragraph earlier than the link provided by futurebird) refusing to do is accept Wikidudeman's stipulation to unprotect only if everyone agrees to 1RR. What dbachmann however insists on is that policy be enforced, and that edit warring should cease on that basis. This is a matter of talking past each other: Wikidudeman's immediate concern was unprotection, but dab was thinking one step further.
- "openly asked another admin to look in to a block for him" is also not correct. The link provided shows dbachmann asking another admin to "try [his] hand at Afrocentrism too." Nothing more.
- "He is asked to participate in WP:CEM, but refuses" is also not correct. What dbachmann really said was (paraphrasing for terseness) If futurebird has issues then bring them to him and he will reply, and that his replies would be identical regardless of whether the issues were communicated directly or via a mediator.
- The other points (of all but one) are speculative and without diffs to support them.
The remaining issue relates to WP:CIVIL, and here I find that dbachmann does indeed sometimes overstep the boundaries of proper behavior. But as I noted on the RfC, this is neither typical for him, nor would it be realistic to expect him to always be the perfect angel. Dbachmann is one of the few tough guys we have on the good side. If the occasional burst of incivility is the price to pay for it, then its a very low price. As Folantin put it: "More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated."
If this matter remains between futurebird and dbachmann, then perhaps it would be better if futurebird and dbachmann had a little fireside chat between them before proceeding for arbitration. dbachmann has more than once said that he will talk to anyone who is willing to talk to him. One occasion of him doing so is #6 above, linked to by futurebird as an indication of "refusal" to go to mediation.
I would also like to note that although I endorsed Folantin's comment on the RFC, I got a notice of this RFAR from futurbird anyway. As such, its not fair to suggest that futurebird only notified those people who agreed with his position.
-- Fullstop 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by (uninvolved) Priyanath
As one of many Wikipedia editors who have been on the receiving end of Dbachmann’s name-calling and incivility, I have much sympathy for Futurebird. Dbachmann’s attitude is habitual, and is surprisingly supported by other long-time editors and admins. My concern is not just Dbachmann, but the growing number of long-time editors or admins who seem to think that WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA do not apply to them. There does seem to be some sort of ‘meritocracy’ (Dbachmann's term) in which violations of long-time core policies are ok when certain editors claim to be defending the homeland (Wikipedia) - even though many innocent, good-faith editors are attacked. Other recent cases of uncivil or over-reaching admins coming before ArbCom seem to indicate that this approach is becoming institutionalized. I don’t plan on being involved if this case is accepted, but I would like to see ArbCom and the community give some clarity on the broader issue – do longtime admins have more leeway in violating WP’s most core policies? If so, what do we do about the growing number of editors who seem to be getting the idea that rude comments and incivility are the way things are now done on Wikipedia? –priyanath talk 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by uninvolved Fowler&fowler
This is a waste of everyone's time, not least futurebird's, who, to her/his credit, has contributed more in a handful of edits to the article Cauchy's integral formula than she/he can ever hope to in the thousands of words of this arbitration. As for the issue itself, I can only restate what I said in the RfC:
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. "Civility is important, but it does not trump all other considerations" (Raymond Arritt). Wikipedia has to decide, at the highest levels, whether facile politeness displayed by persistent "idiots" should be valued more 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 cockeyed 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» 01:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
However, if ArbCom does decide to accept this, then it should also include
- Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and
- Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
within the purview of this RFArb and scrutinize their behavior as well. As for the case presented by user:futurebird, I see a one-sided presentation. In her statement above, user:futurebird gives this example of Dab's effort to "shame" deeceevoice, remarks that she/he later saw fit to remove from the talk page discussion, deeming them to be a personal attack. She/he failed to mention (let alone censure or delete) deeceevoice's remarks immediately before Dab's (to bait him) and immediately after (to rub it in): like these ("time to put up or shut up"), or these ("Gee, looks like someone's getting a little twitchy/bitchy when called to account. ;p") (with edit summary, "bitchiness, ad hominem attack. so-ooo unbecoming! tsk, tsk, tsk"), or and these ("latest hissy fit"). Also, after their stalwart effort on the RfC, which laid the groundwork for this, what happened to user:deeceevoice and user:Bakasuprman? Why haven't we heard from them here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Last updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
user:futurebird has also brought up the oft-quoted 2005 "racist comment" of Dab, as had user:Bakasuprman, who painstakingly detailed it in the recently concluded RfC. This needs a little bit of explanation: While Dab may not have used the best choice of words, he was really trying to grapple there with something that other observers of India have noted, for example in India: A Million Mutinies Now or The Argumentative Indian, namely the emergence, in the public discourse in India, of myriad forms of cultural, regional, national, religious, or linguistic chauvinism. Chauvinism that is not only a far cry from Gandhi, but is often also lacking even the veneer of attendant politeness that might have been seen, say, in a Lincoln-Douglas Debate or a Huxley-Wilberforce Debate. When those dynamics play themselves out in a Wikipedia edit war, it becomes difficult for an administrator to make sense of them, much less fix them. When I myself arrived on Wikipedia a little over a year ago, many India-related pages were rife with such wars and warriors, and I can still conjure up, with a shiver, the first time a number of these warriors (including user:Bakasuprman) arrived — out of the blue and all at once — on a page I was editing and of which they had no expertise or history of editing and, without the courtesies of coherent edit-summaries, proceeded to ambush me (see statement of Aksi great in the Hkelkar2 arbitration.) During the last twelve months alone, ArbCom has examined these issues at least four times in the cases of Hkelkar, user:Bharatveer, user:Freedom skies, and Hkelkar2 (please read the Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Finally, in her comments below, user:deeceevoice says, "I'm not intimidated one whit by Fowler or others who have attempted and threatened, as in the ANI against DBachmann, from the very beginning to twist any action against him into an ongoing "get-deeceevoice" effort." I would like to state that this is the first I have heard of the ANI. I did not participate in it, much less threaten anyone there. I participated in only one RfC about Dab – the third and recently concluded – and there too my statement (made 26 November) was abstract and general. I had never heard of the Afrocentrism page, or of users futurebird, deceevoice until then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:Rocksanddirt
I agree with Fowler&fowler. The community has long decided to tollerate a bit of incivility from users whose main purpose is the creation of good encyclopedia. Dab is by far not the worst offender in this situation. I recommend the committee not take this case, similar to the case of MONGO recently also declined. The issues are similar (though not the same). --Rocksanddirt 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:Ovadyah
I came across a recent RFC on Dbachmann, and I was appalled by what I read. It's closer to a character assault than a complaint about user conduct. I recommend the committee take the case - to dispense swift justice to some of the complainers who have behaved far worse than Dab. Ovadyah 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by User:bloodofox
Hello there. Distancing myself from the Afrocentricism camp that I have nothing to do with, I would like to state that I've experienced issues with Dab over my time with Wikipedia that are considerably more troubling to me. That is Dab's intentional and systematic insertion of his own unreferenced material into numerous articles that is largely going unchecked, which can be a serious problem for those persons or subjects being accused or associated with these claims. For a thorough explanation, please see my statement here: [2] I do not support ridiculous claims that Dab is a "racist" or a "fascist" at all but I think he can have a serious problem with policy when it suits him. I am not happy with having to go around mopping up after an administrator in the remote regions of Wikipedia that I inhabit. Other administrators in good standing working in similar areas have had such issues as well, as you can see in the comments section of the link in my post above by User:Kathryn NicDhàna & in User:Pigman's own comments here:[3]. :bloodofox: 06:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by uninvolved User:Akhilleus
I'm surprised to see that the arbitrators are accepting this case, as I don't think the issues involved here are serious enough to need arbitration. However, if this case goes forward, I think that Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) needs to be added as a party, since her block and unblock are being blamed on Dbachmann somehow (see futurebird's questions above).
Please consider adding Bakasuprman as a party as well. As I've already posted on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, I think that his statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_3#Comment_from_Bakaman violates the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar_2; if the issue at hand in this case is civility, the accusation that Dbachmann "is inherently prejudiced against actual Indians/Hindus editing pages on India and Hinduism" should be given the attention it deserves. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comment by deeceevoice
I'm not intimidated one whit by Fowler or others who have attempted and threatened, as in the ANI against DBachmann, from the very beginning to twist any action against him into an ongoing "get-deeceevoice" effort. This issue is too important to just let slide. As regular contributors to the project, we have a right to expect, and a responsibility to demand, that Dbachmann and other admins be held to the same standards -- indeed, higher standards -- as those to which regular users are held. I'm grieving a personal loss at the moment, however, and have neither the time nor the patience for this now. So, don't expect anything from me until next week. Feel free, however, to refer in context to any of the copious comments I've registered on this matter. I stand by them. deeceevoice 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comment by uninvolved user Paul Pieniezny
I too am a bit astonished that the committee are taking on this case. Having had a look at the Indian articles DBachmann recently edited, I find some of the charges preposterous to say the least, and warranting at least a warning. If you read that 2005 statement correctly, DBachmann never called India a sh*thole, he just said that there is now internet access for a lot of people who feel real ethnic hatred, for whatever reason. And still that diff has been used as a rallying cry for many months. Some of the people who claim DBachmann is some sort of cultural/identical/religious... racist, who feels he must carry the white man's burden, were taking away precisely that sort of information from Koenraad Elst. The point we should consider is that if you are as prolific and as knowledgeable an editor as DBachmann and you venture into these sensible areas, you will have to face a lot of incivility, and will be far more vulnerable to provocation than other editors. And despite the provocation, he seems to have remained fairly calm, I have seen. Therefore, I sincerely hope the committee will indeed consider the behaviour of anyone involved in this.--Paul Pieniezny 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
