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 [7][8] and [9]. 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.

@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. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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 WP:NOTHERE. 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. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 [10], 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 polite 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 WP:FRINGE pushed by racists is concerning to say the least. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at ANI, I'm okay with waiting a little bit, even if the dewiki editing since then isn't a good sign. I came here because ANI didn't seem like the most appropriate venue for dealing with this. Other than people saying they endorse the reblock and editors chiming in that everything else isn't okay, there's little action that could be taken other than that. Sure, someone could block Dbachmann as an individual adminastrative action but wouldn't that cause more drama than this case request? I think it's a bit weird we can have a situation where people can agree that someone could be indef-blocked but not whether or not they should remain an admin. Hate is disruptive. Something I'd also like to reiterate from ANI is how Dbachmann said this in 2018, arguing that Khoisan peoples "arguably qualify" as a seperate species instead of simply being human. How is this comment not blatant dehumanization and prejudice? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to let the arbs work out how they want to deal with this, but for what it's worth three months seems like an unreasonably long timeframe to me. A week or two sounds like a more reasonable compromise. As I said, I'm okay with waiting a bit for some sort of defence (even if it's incredibly unlikely to convince me and I'm doubtful I'll even get one). I'm also not opposed to whatever you might decide to do motion wise. It's in your hands and I understand there's processes and other complicated matters to consider that don't exactly make this a lightning fast kind of decision even if my opinion on the matter is clear. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Every diff except one (which I was able to find by looking at contributions from around the same time of the other 2018 diff I found concerning) was already featured in the ANI discussion. I didn't go digging through all their contributions the past 20 years. My intent in bringing up everything in the original request that was (1) this was the best venue and that (2) concerns already mentioned there were mentioned here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. I remember that the Universal Code of Conduct was brought up in the Athaenara case request and I was wondering if someone whose more familiar with it could explain if it's applicable here? I'm not really sure what the status of it is in enwiki right now but I vaguely remember something about discrimination in there that might be relevant. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbachmann: I was wondering if you could clarify a bit more why you made the unblock in the first place? The cited "ideological opponent" argument makes me very uncomfortable considering this would have otherwise been a fairly uncontroversial block. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac and Wugapodes, I'm not quite sure what's on your reading list, but if it isn't already, I'd suggest looking at how the ANI thread has changed since this case request was opened. The indef proposal has been reopened, images created by DBachmann with possible issues have been identified, and there's some sort of community proposal going on for people's opinions on a desysop. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dbachmann

I have given my rationale in the two posts here[11][12] and I would really like to rest my case. I have encountered what I judge to be blatant admin overreach, reversed the action without seeking further escalation or consequences, and stated clearly that I was not going to double down and willing to submit to review by a third uninvolved admin. It is entirely opaque to me how there could be any reasonable case for seeking "arbitration" against me in this situation. But if I am mistaken in this judgement too, it would mean that I have completely lost touch with the rules and power dynamics in the project today and it is just as well that I am being arbitrated against. dab (𒁳) 09:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 ANI comment, and I probably won’t be commenting here too much. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 12:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do the other Arbs think about one month as an in between? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

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.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: To be fair, I left the second message after he had quit for the day. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am Deutschen nichts Neues He goes days without editing either EN or DE. I suppose he could be unaware of the ArbCom case request? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Everybody. He goes weeks without editing on both DEWIKI and here. My note asking him to come to the ArbCom case request was after he had already stopped editing there. I don't think it fair or reasonable to ascribe ulterior motives to his not responding yet. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that Dbachmann holds "racist views," or even that he performed a bad unblock, (we all make mistakes) but that he has not responded in a manner consistent with WP:ADMINACCT. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to "yo". @Joe Roe:. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's a problem, but not one on which ArbCom should base dessysopping. And of course, those views (probably) led to the ill-advised unblocking. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{@Joe Roe: I think this part of the overall problem with Dbachmann is best serviced at the ANI thread. There are now (I think) two proposals you might find interesting -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: I did not mean to say you were out of line on the TBAN. If it is something the ArbCom can/would agree to do, then of course it is not out of line. {Can't actually be out of line.) I did think y'all were considering just the one glaringly important issue-- WP:ADMINACCT and whether it warrants removing his Adminship. I apologize for not being sharper or more discerning. Or clearer in my opining.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennalen: In their reply to me HERE, Barkeep49 explains why Dbachmann has had ample time to respond and should have before now. Like before lighting off to Germany. That he is not sitting before the keyboard right this minute is not relevant. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

Do I have this right? We have an ongoing WP:AN/I thread 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 WP:NEGOTIATE. You've never edited their talk page before the notification of this RFAR. This should be declined as rather premature. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:ADMINCOND or WP:DR, 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Dbachmann is choosing not to participate in this case, it's hardly surprising. Over the last two years of cases involving administrator conduct, about half have resulted in no response from the admin. Consider that for a moment. Administrators are integral, trusted members of the community. Yet, as a body administrators are not well inclined to participate at ArbCom cases about them. ArbCom should be taking a long, hard look into why that is the case. My own feeling are that ArbCom is a fatally flawed, abusive process that absolutely destroys the people who are dragged before them in a hideously unfair, disgustingly bureaucratic nightmare. If I had a case accepted where the case was named for me, I would refuse to participate. It's an utter waste of time. That said, WP:ADMINACCT is policy. Dbachmann has not edited since being made aware of these proceedings. Whether they are actively choosing not to edit to avoid these proceedings or are not editing for other reasons, the effect is the same. While there is no crisis that forces the motion to go forward right now, ArbCom must eventually act on the motion. The unblock was improper. I don't really see anyone arguing that it was a justified unblock. Dbachmann is responsible for explaining that, per WP:ADMINACCT. Failing to do so undermines community trust in their ability to be an administrator. The unblock by itself should never be enough to desysop them, but failing to comply with WP:ADMINACCT provides more basis for a desysop. An administrator that fails to comply with that shouldn't be an administrator as they are effectively operating against the community will, without any means of rectification. Since ArbCom is the only way to handle such a situation, ArbCom must eventually pass the motion to desysop. If Dbachmann returns to editing anywhere without responding to the case, the motion should pass when it's clear they refuse to participate. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

Dbachmann's sole response to any query about his actions was when he advised Moneytrees that "I hope I can invest some time in this tonight.". 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 multiple edits on dewiki 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.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 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

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. Valereee (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying hard not to be cynical that Dbachmann, after dozens of editors wasted hours of time over several days discussing this in multiple places, responds just a few hours after motions started passing. But then I see the really kind of done-with-it tone they're taking and I kind of stop trying so hard. Valereee (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

He's started up at de.wiki again today, ignoring DFO's talk page ~~messages~~ message there. Time to vote to accept, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I assume I'm one of the "other two admins" you're concerned about. Thanks for worrying, but I have zero background concern about a suspended case, if that helps break any kind of log jam. And, in the more general case, I view suspended cases that never go live as successes, not failures. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 until they decide the community is worthy of a response. I'm quite happy to do it. Let us know, ArbCom.Struck since DB has now honoured us by deigning to respond. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:Hate is disruptive.) Levivich (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop by motion seems like a no brainer at this point. Levivich (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

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: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Statement_by_Ferahgo In that request, CaptainEek [13] and Barkeep49 [14] 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 discussion 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 WP:FRINGE can overrule typical sourcing practices on articles - particularly WP:V, WP:PARITY, and the standards of reliability for academic sources that are defined at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This dispute over sourcing has been simmering (to use CaptainEek's term) for about three years, and was previously brought before Arbcom in June 2020 and in October 2021. 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. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Girth Summit

I'm trying to put myself in Dbachmann's shoes here. If I made an administrative decision, and almost immediately saw a strong negative reaction to it amongst my colleagues at ANI, I might want to take a moment to get myself together before responding. I might also have real life things going on that limit my ability to respond quickly. So, part of me is minded to encourage a bit of patience in a situation like this. However, making a response at my earliest convenience would be my top editing priority, because I believe in WP:ADMINACCT. Dachmann has been quite active over at dewiki lately - they've made more edits there in the last 24 hours than they had in the month preceding. I recognise that this is a volunteer project and we choose how to spend our own time, but nothing they are doing over there looks extremely urgent, and while doing that they are entirely ignoring the concerns expressed over here. I can't think of an explanation for that other than that they are cocking a snook at ADMINACCT, and by extension at the enwiki community. So yes, I would urge the committee to accept the case. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

Whatever else happens here, arbcom should comment on Special:Diff/1146923962. It would be unfortunate if the the ANI thread ended up closed with something like "The community imposes a site-ban on Dbachmann, which includes both editing and use of their admin tools". I'm pretty sure that would be unenforceable and might result in a Constitutional crisis. Better to head things off before it gets to that point. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss: I'm curious how you found the three edits you cited in your original report? If somebody does something out of the blue and you go looking at their edit history to see what else they've done, it's unlikely you'll stumble upon something from 18 years and 200k edits ago. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

@Barkeep49: regarding your comments on the motion you proposed, after three months, would you be proposing a motion to enact other restrictions, in concert with the automatic closure of the suspended case? isaacl (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to administrator accountability, while I don't think judgement should be swiftly passed based on a few days delay, I also think there is no need for a suspended case for sanctions related solely to accountability. If an administrator isn't responsive, whether by choice or by extenuating circumstances, they can't fulfill their responsibility for their administrative actions. In this case, should the committee deems that the best course of action is to remove administrative privileges, then I feel that doing it by a motion is sufficient. The former admin can appeal should there be specific circumstances where it is warranted, and the committee can vacate their decision if necessary.

For other types of poor behaviour contrary to community expectations, personally I don't think a fixed rule can be applied to all cases (regardless of the privileges held by the parties). For many situations, accommodating constraints from the parties to some extent is desirable (and is often taken into account when the behaviour of primarily one person is being examined). But there are cases where the behaviour in question can be reasonably judged based on all available evidence. isaacl (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

(1) Waiting for a statement by Dbachmann before opening a case is appropriate, however, given the evidence presented, it would, in my opinion, take an extremely convincing statement to change my opinion that a desysop is appropriate.
(2) The historical evidence is valid and important, despite its age, as it presents a picture of the continuing state of mind of Dbachmann concerning the subject area, which plays into their apparent motivation for making the unblock.
(3) I very strongly urge the committee not to get sucked into the morass suggested above by Feragho the Assassin (and below by Sennalen and Tickle me). Not only is her own editing history in the subject area fraught, but the validity of sourcing is totally irrelevant to the actions taken by Dbachmann. It is Dbachmann's beliefs about the subject area which seem to have motivated the unblock. Further, ArbCom should be extremely reluctant to tread into the area of approving or disapproving of sourcing, especially at a time when they are doing so, to an extent, in regard to the Holocaust in Poland case. The committee has its toes right on the boundary which delineates its remit, and should make no move whatsoever to wiggle any farther into the area of content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Given the information that Dbachmann may not have been editing de.wiki while ignoring this issue on en.wiki, I'd like to inquire if anyone has e-mailed Dbachmann (as opposed to posting notes on his accounts) informing them of the need for their response? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the off chance that no one had already done so, I've e-mailed Dbachmann informing them of the ANI thread and this case request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV editors continue in their attempt to use this conduct issue as a backdoor wedge to give them the tools to skew Wikipedia articles to favor their entirely FRINGE viewpoints. Please do not give in to their campaign to turn this into a content issue, which it is not. Science is science, and FRINGE theories are what they are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enough time has passed without hearing from Dbachmann, who is clearly avoiding the issue and does not intend to either explain their actions or do the right thing and voluntarily give up the bit. The Committee needs to take action on this and desysop, through whatever mechanism they decide is appropriate. A topic ban on race would also be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult for me to understand how any member of ArbCom could take Dbachmann's statement above as sufficient to remove their support vote from either of the desysop and suspend motions, considering that it explains nothing whatsoever about their behavior, nor the long wait for a comment from them - unless the removal was replaced by a straightforward vote to open a case. Such a "non-explanation explanation" should not be acceptable under ADMINACCT. I am disheartened that the committee seems to be backing away from dealing with what the community quite clearly sees as a serious behavioral problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NebY

Suspending for three months would seem generous to Dbachmann, given that they continued to edit Wikipedia and that an alternative being considered by the committee is an immediate permanent desysop by motion, and could require Arbcom and other involved or interested editors to pick up the threads again after months. Would a period of seven or ten days be more appropriate? NebY (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

It's merely a sidebar that this may have been opened 2 days too early. But IMO it's slam dunk obvious that unless there is a voluntary desysop there, Arbcom will need to take this up and they are the only ones who can do so. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sennalen

The context of Dbachmann's comments about Hindus and India is that he was resisting POV pushing by Hindu ethno-nationalists at Hinduvata and Rajput. In the third diff he is commenting that taxonomic classification of humans to finer degrees than the species level is politically controversial. Would anyone here disagree with that?

This is not evidence for an irreconcilable conflict of attitude. I see evidence that Dbachmann was uncivil and possibly performed an involved block in 2005. Arbitrators should inquire into why such motivated opposition research is being presented.

The root cause is Moneytrees' block of AndewNguyen. This was an indef site-wide block without prior discussion or warning. It did not stem from any action by AndewNguyen or dispute resolution board. There is no evidence of prior or future disruption by AndewNguyen. Being a SPA is not in itself an actionable offense. This has an appearance of a punitive block based on opposition to AndewNguyen's source and policy-based arguments[15] I believe there is cause to consider desysoping Dbachmann; however, the actions of other parties also needs scrutiny.

The apparent consensus in favor of the block at ANI is deeply disturbing. A change like this to RS policy[16] does not have community consensus, yet many editors appear to WP:VOTE as if it did. Whether or not Arbitrators can take any action in this area, the normal fact-finding process in beginning a case would be profoundly beneficial to the encyclopedia. Sennalen (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: The consensus to reblock doesn't demonstrate a lack of fire, but that the fire extinguisher is on fire. Sennalen (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey: I'll defer to others about timezone calculations, but Dbachmann has not edited de.wiki since the 28th, so I don't think there is evidence of his being at the keyboard. Sennalen (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I don't disagree with the analysis that Dbachmann should have communicated before the 28th, but as a point of fact, there's no evidence yet he's aware of the case request. Sennalen (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EW

If the Committee is thinking about a topic ban, I don't think WP:ARBR&I would be a broad enough scope—it would need to be something like "race, broadly construed" in order to cover Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann (which involved Afrocentrism and Ancient Egyptian race controversy), Special:Diff/867381939, and other times Dbachmann has been disruptive outside the specific R&I subject area. (Arguably it would be better to leave the t-ban to ANI, though: the desysop issue is the only part of this that the community can't resolve itself.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, your new motion still says "If such a request is not made within three months" rather than two weeks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple arbs suggesting that Dbachmann has edited on de-wiki after this case request was filed. Actually, he last edited there at 11:01 UTC on the 28th (as this gadget shows), while the filing didn't come until 11:39 UTC. (I assume the error is because of de:Spezial:Beiträge/Dbachmann, which is two hours off because de-wiki uses Central European Summer Time rather than UTC.) This probably isn't a big deal at this point, but I thought it was worth noting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I haven't examined this in fine detail yet, but two things come to mind. 1: We don't have a choice but to examine the original block, which is part of the motivation, so it has to be examined. 2. If "desysop and suspend" is what happens for dab, then fine. Instead of complaining about it, we should remember that it keeps admin from gaming the system by not replying (the reason the method exists), and for consistency sake, just use it in similar situations as it does the trick. No need to reinvent the wheel, even we get tired of seeing that same old wheel. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Catfish Jim and the soapdish

Nothing much here, other than to address Beeblebrox's question about people sitting on evidence for 18 years... A fairly simple google search brings up a Wikileaks document that goes into some detail on this subject. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least that's the title... it's actually a thread compiling "evidence of racism" in usegroup alt.politics.india.progressive [17] Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tickle me

ArbCom, please look at the discussion about the Dysgenics article here, [18], especially the last few comments, and also the related revert here. [19] Do you not see any problem with this spontaneous decision that all sources presenting a certain idea are "fringe" and cannot be cited, while not acknowledging other editors' comments that this idea is in fact supported in the majority of secondary sources? Removals like these have happened on at least 15 articles, and often it is the highest quality sources that are declared to be "fringe", as happened there.

I get that Dbachmann's admin actions are the more urgent concern, but it is evident from the discussion at Talk:Eyferth_study that the ongoing source removals are the reason all these other problems are happening. If ArbCom can't address the underlying issue, and only addresses the symptoms of it, there will continue to be more symptoms.

A few months ago Barkeep49 offered that ArbCom could look into this possible misuse of WP:FRINGE if someone made a new arbitration request focused on the related conduct issues. [20] This current request is such a request. Please keep your word, and don't allow this to continue churning in the community with no chance of a long-term resolution. tickle me 20:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joe Roe

Dbachmann has probably been the most significant contributor to our coverage of palaeoanthropology, archaeogenetics, and Eurasian prehistory, having started many articles on core topics in the project's early days. These are three fields with a deep, troubled history of scientific racism. So on the one hand, it's normal for someone working in these areas to become involved in disputes in highly contentious areas, and perhaps not express themselves well. On the other, as someone who also works in those areas, I've definitely raised an eyebrow or two at dab's contributions before. This is the context of the dispute with Maunus (diff #9 above) where, again speaking as someone with some qualifications in this area, Maunus put forward the scientific mainstream view in response to a statement from Dbachmann (that the Khoisan people are a different species) that is blatantly pseudoscientific and racist and really cannot be interpreted any other way.

Still, I'm not going to judge what Dbachmann's 'views' are based on one diff from 2018. My take-aways from this context are: a) that if ArbCom accepts this case, I expect a review of his mainspace edit will produce relevant evidence; b) the outcome of this case will have a significant effect on our coverage of anthropology topics; and c) if you end up finding that Dbachmann has racist views and desysop as a result, please don't stop there, because we don't want someone like that editing articles either.

@Deepfriedokra: Several editors, here and at ANI, have expressed concern that Dbachmann holds racist views. And not without reason, given the 2018 diff in particular. You might not think that's a problem, but I do. – Joe (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

Arbcom, I am very concerned about statements such as:

"Well, I'm certainly not happy ... I am loathed to sanction anyone at Arbcom without them having a chance to say something."
"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."
"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 would much rather go with a desysop by motion"

Is this supposed to be a case request or the case itself? If it is a case request, how is it that you have already made up your minds that sanctions are appropriate, that the unblock is bad, that there are "issues" with Dbachmann's conduct?

It doesn't help that the case request is named "Dbachmann" in spite of the possible anchoring issues that has been raised repeatedly. If Dbachmann doesn't participate, I'd guess that it's at least in part because the environment is so hostile, akin to a show trial. Banedon (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

This is in response to the motion for a topic ban from the topic of Race. I don't think ArbCom should be making decisions like this, which fall within the remit of the community (or individual admins under whatever discretionary sanctions are called now). So I've echoed the same proposal at the ANI discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JayBeeEll

I have been lightly involved in the past in disputes on Wikipedia involving scientific racism and race and intelligence. My impression is that this area was, at one point, highly problematic, but that the 2020 RfC (as reaffirmed repeatedly, e.g., here) resulted in a situation in which editors who wanted to bring our articles on those topics into agreement with the mainstream were able to do so with significantly less trouble and interference than previously from those whose editing was focused on promoting fringe views. This has been accompanied by some degree of attrition in the latter group; the indefinite block of AndewNguyen (that set of this whole thing, and which has been clearly endorsed by the community via the discussion at ANI) is the latest instance of this positive trend. While the fringe-promoting group is obviously still organizing off-wiki (as evidenced by Dbachmann's after my attention has been drawn to it and, e.g., by the reappearance of Ferahgo the Assassin (whose otherwise made only one edit in the last six months)), the resulting disruption on Wikipedia has been isolated. Dbachmann's egregious behavior is an example, and one that should be easy to handle as an isolated incident. --JBL (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Animal lover 666

Any number of diffs from 4 1/2 years ago or longer can't be the basis for a case now. If you can't show multiple incidents involving this admin, or one extreme one, from the last 12 months - no action is necessary.

Statement by Robert McClenon (Dbachmann)

It appears that the ArbCom is about to accept this case somehow. The main question at this point is how long to wait for Dbachmann to file a reply. I have previously criticized ArbCom for being too patient with administrators who were accused of tool abuse. I think that two weeks is long enough for Dbachmann to decide whether to reply. A secondary question is whether ArbCom should consider only the abuse of administrator tools, or should also consider Dbachmann's racism. ArbCom exists to adjudicate disputes that the community is unable to resolve. It appears that the community is ready to take action with regard to racism, so that that issue does not need to be considered by ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update by Robert McClenon

Dbachmann has now replied. It is my opinion that their reply is inadequate, and is disrespectful to the community. In particular, they have not answered the question of who called their attention to the block and how. However, they also write:

But if I am mistaken in this judgement too, it would mean that I have completely lost touch with the rules and power dynamics in the project today

. I agree that they have completely lost touch with the rules in the project today. Numerous members of the community are stating at ANI that Dbachmann was out of line, and has disregarded the accountability of administrators, and that action is needed.

There are only two questions now for ArbCom to answer. First, should a case be opened, or should Dbachmann be desysopped by motion? There is no reason to wait further and no justification for waiting further. Second, if a case is opened, should it be limited to administrator accountability, or should it also involve racism? It should not involve racism, which the community is capable of dealing with. ArbCom may decide whether any preceding administrative conduct should also be reviewed, but my opinion is that the only question is Dbachmann.

ArbCom should either desysop Dbachmann by motion, or open a case, and the community should be allowed to continue to address racial issues without also worrying about administrator accountability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Balph Eubank

Dbachmann's response offers the possibility he is completely out of touch with procedures and norms and I tend to agree. The evidence here points to someone who doesn't know how to be an admin in 2023. However, I am most impatiently waiting for him to comment regarding his statement here [21], specifically the "after my attention has been drawn to it" part. Drawn by whom? The question of possible off-wiki coordination or admin shopping by the person he unblocked cannot be ignored here. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

One thing I want to call attention to is that while Dbachmann (and several other commentators) suggest that norms have simply shifted, one of the most glaring issues here would have been a problem even when Dbachmann was last active. He says here that it has been years since I have edited any related topics, and I consider myself entirely uninvolved; but that is not, and has never been, how WP:INVOLVED works. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute - this text, with very few changes, was policy over a decade ago at the time when Dbachmann was last active as an admin. Once you are involved you remain involved forever. Someone, like Dbachmann, who has expressed strident views about race and intelligence would never be allowed to act as an administrator in that topic area - not now, not ten years from now, not a hundred years from now. Someone who doesn't understand something that basic should not be an administrator. (Not I think anyone can in good faith argue that the ideological fervor Dbachmann expressed about the topic in the past can reasonably be said to have dimmed given that in the unblock rationale itself, where one would have expected him to be on his best behavior, he could not resist adding an aside about the overbearing ideological "mainstream".) --Aquillion (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ForbiddenRocky

To me it looks like there are two issues:

Topic Ban: This is MOOT. That looks like it's being handled by the community.
Desysop:
1. Is Dbachman involved? I think, per Aquillion's argument above, Dbachmann is involved.
2. There is no way as an admin, he could not know he was involved. And if he didn't, the his judgment there means he should be desysop'd.
3. Because he's involved, he should not have unblocked.
4. Because his response as not in line with current standards, he should be desysop'd for failing to meet the standards of primarily the WP:INVOLVED standard, and secondarily the WP:ADMINACCT standard
5. Additionally, he had been warned prior to not use admin tools where he was involved. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I'm going to guess people are following the AN/I board about this case, I note two things:

The topic ban is being addressed there. It's going to be a mess if ARBCOM takes this up at the same time.
There is a petition/mass-joint-statement there about getting ARBCOM to take up the desysop issue. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

I do not claim to have any special knowledge or insight on the merits of the case, nor of whether the Committee is permitted or required to accept it. Therefor, my only comment here will be to say it would be grotesque to admit diffs from 2005 – nearly twenty years ago – as evidence. First of all, it is virtually unimaginable that these could be relevant to current events; people typically change a lot over the course of a quarter of their lifespan. Second of all, and perhaps more importantly, accepting these would establish a ghastly precedent: any time someone is subject to disciplinary proceedings, it is accepted and encouraged for other parties to to comb through their entire edit history (perhaps encompassing hundreds of thousands of edits) to find anything which could reflect on them negatively. My contributions, of which there are about eighty thousand, go back to 2014; indeed, some of my earliest edits were reverting vandalism on politically charged articles.

I am opposed to adding a requirement (for administrators, or for anyone) that to edit Wikipedia you must prepare to be questioned at length about every word of every comment you say to anyone here for the entire rest of your life.

Statement by Newyorkbrad

We have now had 35 people (not counting the arbitrators) comment on this request, of whom 34 seem to care more about whether Dbachmann remains an administrator than he does. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dbachmann: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Dbachmann: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Clovermoss, did you mean to name Dbachmann in this case? AndewNguyen is not an administrator, and the links you have provided seem to be related to Dbachmann. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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? Primefac (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per the others. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Deepfriedokra's point of view, but now that this case is here, I would like a response here from 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. Worm^TT(talk) 12:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm certainly not happy. I understand why Barkeep mentions a topic ban, based on reading into Dbachmann's actions and some ancient (by wiki standards) opinions and warnings. I'm undecided on whether that is the right thing to do or not. Regarding their admin user right, I'm seeing an admin who rarely uses the tools and is not very active who has overturned a block without discussion, casting out some aspersions in doing so. Then, when the community made clear their unhappiness with the course of action, Dbachmann went quiet. They carried on editing on the DE wiki, effectively thumbing their nose at the EN community. And that's not even to mention the possibility of off-wiki evidence regarding how their attention was drawn.

That leaves the question of what to do. The block has been re-instated, so the question comes to admin rights. Would the action on it's own be enough to remove admin rights? Almost certainly not. Add in the intentional silence (WP:ADMINCOND), well, perhaps.

I am loathed to sanction anyone at Arbcom without them having a chance to say something - been down that road and fought hard against it. I struggle with the idea of a suspended case for someone who is active on other projects. I do not wish to encourage people to go silent, which increases community outrage and might mean appropriate sanctions would be missed. We have a lot of bad solutions from an Arbcom perspective

I do see merit in Black Kite and Floquenbeam's suggestion of indef-blocking, though that would need to be an individual administrator action, which would of course be under its own scrutiny.

At present, we are stuck with waiting until the pressure builds and something gives. Worm^TT(talk) 09:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Banedon - One issue stands without needing further investigation, or a wider case and that is WP:ADMINACCT, which specifically states Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Removal of the admin toolset and a suspended case is standard in these circumstances (see examples on this page, given by Primefac below) - and can be handled by motion.

You will see below that I have opposed a motion for a topic ban - for precisely that reason, that we haven't had a case. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moneytrees I'd struggle to support anything shorter than 2 months. Worm^TT(talk) 15:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has taken a turn that I wasn't expecting, with Dbachmann responding and the ANI thread coming up with solutions. I was going accept a case, but it does seem that the community has this well in hand and I don't believe a case is needed. What's more, I believe I've seen enough that I'd remove the sysop bit (as per Level 2 procedures). So we just don't need a case at this point - unless Dbachmann would like one. Worm^TT(talk) 07:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now the admin bit is removed, I do not not believe we need a further case. Decline Worm^TT(talk) 15:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, nothing more to do here. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 [22], 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. SilkTork (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia, just not English Wikipedia. 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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 examples in the policy initially seem to apply here, upon a complete reading I can't see it. For instance Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention initially seems right but then it notes (in part) 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 WP:Hate is disruptive (as I've typed this) at least feels like a better rationale. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I touch on some of this in my support for the motion below, but the accountability clock started for me after this edit, which as well before the dewiki editing, and increased a level with the ANI notice, also before the dewiki editing, and another level with the ArbCom notice. The good faith efforts to really make sure Dbachmann has seen that they need to respond are nice and I'm glad we have people like you making those efforts in our community. But those efforts go above and beyond what policy requires for me. If you know you've taken a controversial action (and by that diff they should have known they had done that) and aren't going to be around to defend it for weeks you need to undo it or find someone else willing to accept responsibility for it under my interpretation of the admin policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tickle me: I try to not get too hung up on paperwork but I don't think it's fair to expect us to expand the scope of what we're considering here so much. If you feel we need to consider that broader scope please put in the effort (having filed a case request myself I know it's real effort) at finding the evidence of disruption around FRINGE. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline given the desysop motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the oppose below, I would like to reiterate my position that an administrator that needs to be topic banned should obviously not be an administrator at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we are dredging up ancient history, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dbachmann reflects that even way back then the main concern with this admin was that they would not use the tools and were not sufficiently engaged with the community. If you've never seen a 2004 RFA, you may be a bit shocked by how lightweight the RFA process was back then. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for statements, but I am not thrilled by the inclusion of diffs from 2005 in the complaint. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's a bit weird that someone sat on possibly explosive evidence for... what.. eighteen years? On the other hand, we also have this committee warning him fifteen years ago not to do what it seems he very recently did. This is an odd case, if the 2018 comments had been brought to the committee's attention, or to WP:AE for sanctions under WP:ARBR&I at the time it is possible we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this could have been avoided if we acted in 2018, but hindsight and all.

Working from first principles I would much rather go with a desysop by motion, but I think we can Chesterton's fence it and keep the suspended case due to the upsides of having a consistent failure to appear jurisprudence. That would free up the community to decide on a topic ban by consensus at ANI. I do not see that non-mop related things as beyond what the community can solve at this juncture.

Hate is Disruptive continues to be a sensitive area within the community. I would rather wait and see how the community's decisions play out vis-à-vis the essay before Arbcom puts it's weight behind it. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accept now that Dbachmann has responded to answer the following questions (A) Did Dbachmann misuse the admin tools? (B) How should the recidivism effect our response here? (C) Has Dbachmann satisfied the accountability requirements for an administrator? (D) Does Dbachmann's history of comments about race rise to the level of conduct unbecoming of an administrator? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The language of the motions to accept and suspend require that he explicitly ask for a case to be opened. It is clear enough that not opening the case will result in loss of admin tools, yet he isn't asking us to open it, rather the opposite. All I'm seeing in that statement is "I already explained this at the time at that is sufficient, and I don't see any need for an arbcom case." Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read Dbachmann's comments with similar uncertainty. If he wishes to have a case opened and says so, I will vote to accept. However, I think it possible to read Dbachmann's comment as saying that he will not be participating any further and going through a full case with only that comment doesn't lead me to believe we'll accomplish much for the time and effort spent. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we're heading at speed towards a suspended case about the admin issue. But this has raised ancillary issues about race, which we last of course covered in the Race & Intelligence case, and had some rumblings about since. I'd be interested in folk's thoughts on whether there is a deeper systemic issue happening there, or if this is merely an isolated incident that was just lost in the vastness of Wiki. Regardless, this may be the wrong framing for the issue, but if folks think there is a deeper issue, I'd entertain a well made case request. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline With Dbachmann desysopped, our work here is done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Dbachmann. From a policy perspective, the case was opened precisely because you didn't reply to other questions that were asked specifically about those two comments as WP:ADMINACCT states; you had acknowledged that I am myself strapped for time. Which is a bad excuse when taking actions like this... so clearly this as on your mind. If you had responded to the ANI thread rather than editing dewiki I don't know if this case ever gets opened. Further, perhaps there is precedent about this saying it's ok but if there is I don't know it, an admin taking you up on your offer to reverse your unblock is taking a large risk because to do so would be wheel warring and the committee has generally considered that a violation that, all on its own, can result in a desysop; just as a failure to respond at all to concerns at a case request is which is what we've gotten to here with the motion that is passing below. The biggest question for me that you haven't answered is what did you mean by after my attention has been drawn to it, for the following reasons? Barkeep49 (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That question was asked repeatedly at the ANI thread that Dbachmann chose to ignore. His reply now seems to say he still feels he explained his actions sufficiently and does not wish to discuss the matter further or be involved in a full case, despite the clear implication (from the motions below) that failure to do so will result in loss of admin tools. So.... I feel like we could be done here if we could get one motion back to majority support. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Eek. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline — Wug·a·po·des 23:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Open and suspend case

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The "Dbachmann" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months.

If Dbachmann (talk · contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia 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-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. 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 request for adminship.

Support

per my comments above. Above all else, we do not want to open the door to the idea that you can just wait out the community and keep the tools. The last time we opened an admin case without a main party the community was very unhappy. I do not see it as a sustainable way forward. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second choice to Wugs' motion below. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the fairest way to manage ADMINACCT cases where the individual is absent. It gives the individual a chance to return if there is a genuine reason for absence, it also allows them to accept the outcome and carry on editing with the minimum of controversy. I have concerns about the wider behaviour of Dbachmann and whether they should be editing under a topic ban, but I am unwilling to handle that by motion. So, I end up here, on the ADMINACCT issues alone. Worm^TT(talk) 07:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per WTT's comments. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Per my comments below. I'm still entertaining the two-week version. Izno (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very distant second choice. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Wug·a·po·des 18:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I'm not in favour of a case - I'd rather we deal with the incident by motion to desysop and/or topic ban, as a case would require looking into the actions of the other two admins, which would put them through some unnecessary questioning and stress for a month or so, when what they did was perhaps not per the book but was the right thing. I am even less in favour of a suspended case - that would be a background concern for the other two admins, and they don't deserve that. We have enough details before us to deal with this, though I'd prefer to wait a little longer (another 24 hours at least) for Dbachmann to be allowed to have their say. My preference would be for Dbachmann to resign the tools and to voluntarily commit to staying away from Race & Intelligence topics. SilkTork (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dbachmann has responded, prior to which this motion made some measure of sense. Primefac (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I would expect, at minimum, to want a topic ban in addition to the desysop. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be up front about this: I do not care for suspended sentences. I know that's what has been done for a couple recent ADMINCOND cases, but I don't see the point of extending the courtesy. If memory serves all of those cases had admins implicitly or explicitly refuse to participate, and we are rewarding that refusal to participate with "okay, well, if you feel like playing nice with others in the next few months we might give you your admin bit back". GeneralNotability (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued, both as a member of this committee and as member of the broader community, in favor of quick desysop motions in lieu of full cases, and have been rebuffed every time. As I recall the usual argument is that the other option is essentially a case in absentia and we should not be doing that. I can't really say that's an unreasonable position. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am usually for a suspended case - we are a deliberative committee, and we should listen to all sides - so if a case is about a single issue (admin tools) and single individual and the individual does no wish to participate, then I have no problem with creating a little extra paperwork for a solution that allows them a voice and also allows them to quietly step away. However, it doesn't fit this situation, due to 1) the possibility of additional sanctions (topic ban) and 2) the fact that they remain active elsewhere. I will mull. Worm^TT(talk) 09:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the last two years we have had four ADMINCOND issues brought before us that did not go to a full case: Carlossuarez46, Timwi, Jonathunder, and Geschichte. Keen observers will note that only Timwi responded at ARC, and was also the only administrator not desysopped. I am starting to come into agreement with Beeblebrox et al on the usefulness of a suspended case, specifically that when it comes to admin conduct issues we will likely either get a reply or get nothing at all, especially when there are signs that we are actively being ignored (e.g. editing another language). I am more likely to support a simple desysop motion, but as I said yesterday I would prefer to give Dbachmann an opportunity to communicate with us first. Primefac (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suspended case with immeadiate desysop had been a compromise solution between those who just wanted to suspend the case (no desysop) and those who wanted to desysop by motion (no case) for those who failed to respond. I had been in the latter camp and it now appears that more arbs might be of that opinion. Normally I would say "great" because I love when consensus moves towards my preference over time. Two concerns with this, one specific to this case and one in general. The general concern is that I think there's some value in predictability with ArbCom. Policy says we don't have to follow precedent but just because we can ignore it doesn't mean we should and I think having committees which deysop by motion, committees which desysop and suspend, and committees which don't desysop but do suspend based on whoever happens to comprise that particular committee is a worse outcome than consistent deysop and suspend.
My concern specific to this case is that an unblock without consulting the blocking admin on its own is not worth a deysop for me nor is it worth a case (though a pattern of such actions could be). Instead I think the better case can be made that Dbachmann will use the toolkit in ways incompatible with expectations and/or that Dbachmann has failed administrator accountability requirements. I have mixed feelings about the toolkit argument; in general the committeee has not handled such things by motion in recent years. But also Beeblebrox's "if an admin is restricted that is itself incompatible with being an admin" refrain sometimes sways me and I do think we have more than enough justification for a topic ban. However, it's very easy for me to say that Dbachmann has failed administrator accountability requirements and I do think failure to do so at ArbCom, after a reasonable period of time, is grounds for desysop without a case. So if we're going to do this by motion I would have a strong preference to do so on those grounds. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the compromise is a product of its time: in Carlossuarez46 (2021) the committee entertained four proposals. The first was an accept and desysop motion which was generally disfavored. The arguments being that (1) Carlos should be given a reasonable time to respond and (2) there was no imminent danger so a summary judgment was unnecessary. In Timwi (2022) the accept and suspend motion from Carlossuarez46 was proposed roughly 5 days after the case was requested with arbitrators generally making the same arguments. The following day Timwi responded which broke the coalition relying on "give reasonable time to respond". This gave rise to a new issue: (3) when an administrator does respond, the committee is faced with factual questions which need resolved. The traditional solution to a need to find facts is a case, but (for various reason) a full case was seen as undesirable. Two new compromises were proposed: (4) a warning/probationary period and (5) an expedited case. A coalition eventually formed around the warning given that the issues, once replied to, may not be sufficient to warrant a desysop.
To reflect on these two early cases for a moment, I think we need to seriously interrogate what "reasonable time to respond" is. Timwi managed to respond in 7 days and that was enough to avoid an ADMINACCT desysop; meanwhile Carlossuarez got three months and never responded. In both cases, administrators were given deference that may be improper, and as I said in Timwi I worry that we are too quick to rely on procedural concerns which protects administrative conduct that would get other permissions quickly revoked, and this has the long-term, structural effect of creating a culture which protects misconduct.
After that we have two more cases which use this motion. In Jonathunder the request came to us 15 days after he was asked to respond. I proposed three of the 4 motions from Timwi, but the main innovation in Jonathunder is that the motion desysopped pending proceedings unlike in Carlossuarez and Timwi where the motions allowed tool retention pending the case outcome. By the time the motion was enacted, it had been 20 days since Jonathunder was asked to explain their admin actions, and with the motion he was given an additional 6 months. Geschicte is the first time we used this remedy as stock-standard, keeping the desysop-pending-case innovation but shortening the period to 3 months.
So in light of all that, I have two major thoughts: (6) we have generally been willing to innovate, refine, and even abandon this remedy as we learn more about how it operates and (7) I agree with Primefac that "when it comes to admin conduct issues we will likely either get a reply or get nothing at all". With those in mind, I don't think this remedy is achieving its goals. We ask administrators to respond promptly to concerns, but if they actively ignore us we given them 3-6 months and hope they change their mind. It hasn't happened, and I genuinely doubt it ever will. Functionally the only outcomes of this remedy are making it seem like we give admins preferential treatment; in every case it's just been added paperwork we need to remember to do a few months from now. Taking the lessons we've learned from the previous 4 cases, I would prefer that we either (8) move for summary desysop or at the very least (9) shorten the reply period to something on the order of weeks not months to bring the motion in line with ADMINACCT expectations. — Wug·a·po·des 20:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this does much to actually address the concern it's replying to: that there will be a different outcome each year depending on who is serving on the committee. The closest it comes is to suggest that it was an innovation that has proven a failure (6). But since I never expected the admins who we were giving time to participate to actually do so (which I'm not sure I've expressed publicly before but have expressed in arb only spaces) I don't agree with that analysis. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a coalition to a compromise has broken down, and if the concern is whether the coalition might reform in the future, we need to understand why the coalition formed in the first place and whether those conditions are likely to occur again. My reading is that the coalition broke down not merely because of a change in committee composition (the last 3 of those 4 cases are from the same committee) but because experience has shown arguments in favor of the compromise to be flawed. The goal has been to give these administrators a chance to respond (above and beyond what would be given to anyone else) and they uniformly refuse. In response we've generally tightened the accept-and-suspend by adding a preliminary desysop and shortening the time period. If it's prudent, we should continue that trend just like past committees have. Is there a possibility that some future committee decides to use different tools than we do? Sure, but that's a risk of everything we do. The community could elect an admin cabal who refuses to desysop anyone, or even the reverse. The best we can do is make well-reasoned decisions based on past experience and hope that future committees respect them. I think that's likely as well because the reason we got to this point is based on experience which will be as useful in the future as it is now. — Wug·a·po·des 20:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point and agree about appearing to give admins special treatment, but I disagree that the suspended cases were failures. They removed admins who refused to be held accountable for their actions without going through all the effort of a full case. It's not perfect, but it is an effective compromise between "immediate desysop" and "case suspended forever until the user decides to come back" which the committee had done in the past in a few cases, the most glaring example (although not an admin conduct case) being Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody, which was technically "open but held in abeyance" for 11 years. All that being said, there's nothing preventing anyone from proposing a motion for a shorter time frame, especially in light of the fact that it appears this case request is being deliberately ignored by the case subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subsequent comments of Izno, WTT, and Cabayi show why the continued compromise still has traction and give credence to my concern about committees swinging between positions where by the 3 or 6 month suspending can be something that will be durable. I have for now supported the 2 week motion because it really is my preference. But if it seems like it's going to be a 7-5 situation or similar bare majority situation I will strike my support and vote in favor of the motion above for 3 months. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General re, not really sure if there's a target of this chain here.

Suspended cases are nothing new, so I would be leery of drawing conclusions about them based on our recent use of them for admins when they have been in the toolbox for as long as they have been. For example, A Nobody's above is effectively a site ban by motion (despite that motion 2 actually framed it as such and was rejected). I do think recent iteration on the tool has been valuable regardless (the pattern of contributors does seem to be vanishing in lieu of responding), but I do not think the trend is necessarily moving toward removing them in favor solely of acting by motion, and I personally (and have previously made comment on) do not think that would be a preferable state of affairs, as Wugapodes seems to claim.

On different notes that probably should be in the general section above:

At least one statement above has mentioned that Moneytrees' action may not have been called for, and while a consensus of editors at ANI seems to have thought it so (hence the reinstatement of the block), it is also reasonable to suggest that ArbCom review what led to Dbachmann's action. This is one reason I will likely not support the 2 weeks motion, but I still am considering it. (The diffs aren't going anywhere.)

I am entertaining whether ArbCom is actually needed to review behavior in this area yet along similar lines. I don't think it is, especially since we have at least one active CT regime in the area, but I would welcome a separate case request on those grounds if you think you can show a review is necessary. Latching on to this case request about the limited situation and suggesting everything is on fire is in a realm nearly unbelievable given the reinstatement of the block by consensus at ANI.

I otherwise agree largely with Barkeep's second paragraph to which this happens to be a response. (My concern specific to this case ... do so on those grounds.)

I do intend to vote in support of at least the 3 month motion in a day or so pending a response from Dbachmann. He is (was? he has not edited in over 24 hours anywhere at this point) clearly active elsewhere and avoiding even the basic action of acknowledgement of the case request. (I personally struggle with response to grievances but the basic favor of "I can't get to the phone right now" would probably save Dbachmann from an immediate desysop.) Izno (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that he stopped editing on DE.WP shortly after it was mentioned as a complicating factor in this case request. I find it rather suspect. Of course we can't ever really know why anyone stops editing, but in years of observing case requests, filing them myself, being a party to cases, and serving on this committee I have seen this so many times. Why is it these folks always have the time to make these poorly-considered admin actions but never have the time to defend those decisions once the committee gets involved? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Open and suspend case (2)

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The "Dbachmann" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of two weeks.

If Dbachmann (talk · contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia 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-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Dbachmann is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within two weeks 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 request for adminship.

Support

In addition to all the other stuff brought up (bad unblock, potential topic ban), per WP:ADMINACCT, failure to communicate when requested, especially during arbitration proceedings, is sufficient for removal. Dbachmann is editing other projects after being notified of proceedings here. We can give them the chance to respond, but per our policies they should do so promptly, not three months from now. — Wug·a·po·des 22:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
first choice. Two weeks is a perfectly reasonable time frame, I don't see any compelling reason to give several months when they were editing on another project as recently as yesterday. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice that someone went to German Wikipedia and left Dbachmann two different talk page messages. It's nice that someone has tried sending them an email. But my expectation under the Admin policy is that an appropriate talk page notification on enwiki is enough notification to compel a response (and of course in this case there as were two official notifications: one for ANI and one for ArbCom). As a volunteer Dbachmann is welcome to walk away and it appears they have done so here. Given Dbachmann's continued work on our sister project it's clear this is just a choice about enwiki and so in this particular case I think two weeks (plus however long it takes us to pass this motion) is more than adequate time to give a response. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADMINACCT provides that Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during . . . Arbitration Committee proceedings. Given that Dbachmann has edited on dewiki since the opening of this matter, it gives the appearance that he is ignoring the valid concerns raised here, which is extremely unbecoming of an administrator. Even a simple "I've seen this, please give me time to respond" would do. I think two weeks is an appropriate amount of time to give for some kind of response. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Per Eek, I'd be happy to give leniency on the timing if Dbachmann had communicated with us at all and expressed a need for some time. But they instead made a controversial unblock and went radio silent immediately after, and that is not in line with my expectations under ADMINACCT. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to oppose and suggest three months instead, but given the dewp editing, the usual reasons for the three-month duration don't apply (i.e. Dbachmann is clearly regularly at a keyboard). Enterprisey (talk!) 05:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not my favorite, but I would rather pack this in sooner rather than later. The DE editing makes the shorter timeline work --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose

I oppose this motion, for two reasons. Firstly, I feel 2 weeks is insufficient for an individual who needs to go actually inactive. I accept that there is such a thing a "ANI flu" or "Arbcom flu" and I empathise with it - it's not enjoyable to come and face the music. I believe that the individual should have time go away and reflect on whether they want to come back and do so, and two weeks is insufficient period for that. It makes no difference to us if we are desysopping upfront (and in this case I do agree that we should be). Secondly, I am concerned about the wider implications of just removing the bit and ignoring the plausible wider issue - though I can make peace with this factor due to the CT in the area. Worm^TT(talk) 07:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WTT says it well. Two weeks is too short. Last year we went from a 6 month waiting period to a 3 month waiting period in ADMINACCT cases. I could be persuaded to shorten the period again, but not to two weeks. The period needs to be long enough for the Admin to gather their thoughts, or to deal with some IRL emergency, but not so long that everybody else will have forgotten about the issue and no longer care. I don't think I could go shorter than a month. Cabayi (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to a case because the facts regarding misuse of the tools and failure to respond appropriately to concerns are clear enough for a motion to desysop (which is now available). The only aspect that might be worthy of a case would be to look into allegations of racism, but I don't think we have enough recent evidence to consider that. SilkTork (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Cabayi and WTT. Izno (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dbachmann has responded, prior to which this motion made some measure of sense. Primefac (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

On the topic of the "wider issue": I agree that a desysop does not address it, but I'm not sure it needs to when anyone could file an WP:AE request for a CT tban. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole R+I is enough to stop disruption. For Dbachmann it isn't. We had an entire discretionary sanctions regime entitled "Ancient Egypt race controversy" (emphasis added) because of previous disruption by Dbachmann. Disruptive editing that we have at least one subject-matter expert (Joe Roe) telling us continued in at least one edit in 2018. The topic ban needs to be broader than what admins can actually do at AE in order to stop disruptive editing. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I probably should've known that since I voted on it, with the comment "This appears to be a sufficient remedy". That stings a little. I do think a topic ban is in order, but the desysop is the part that has to be done by the committee. A broader topic ban could be hammered out elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No contentious topic designation has to be done by the committee. The community can do General Sanctions. No interaction or topic ban has to be done by the committee. The community can do those too. And yet we regularly do those activities. I'd hoped that the comments I'd made here would have been enough to spur a community discussion about a topic ban in the same way a comment at the ANI thread preceded a site ban discussion (which to be clear I'm less sold on personally but am really glad the community is considering). But we have an open case request to consider the conduct of Dbahcmann. We have a previously completed case involving Dbachman and this general area. We are here we considering Dbachmann's conduct and this idea that I was out of line (which is what I read into the comments here, by Worm, by Deepfriedokra, and especially by Boing) for proposing a motion despite the community not having done so is more than I can take. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that the broader community is waiting to see what we do before opening any further discussions. If we went ahead with a full case, I think it is very likely a very broad tban would be in the proposed decision, but since it appears unlikely that we are doing that, we can kick that aspect back to the community. That's all I was getting at. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to a month instead of two weeks if that leads to a consensus. — Wug·a·po·des 18:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is worth having a discussion of what is an optimal time frame in these types of cases, where all too often the admin in question seemingly just walks away from the case and presents no defense of their actions. It seems clear that the committee is divided on this point. However, I don't personally think it is super important in this specific case as the most plausible scenario is that Dbachmann is following the case but declining to participate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that we have sufficient evidence of misconduct in terms of egregious misuse of a tool, loss of trust of the community, and failure to communicate to consider a motion to desysop, and as such a case is not necessary. However, as WTT indicates, sometimes people need time to ponder matters, and I feel it is still too soon for a motion to be drawn up because I feel there should be reasonable time allowed for someone to explain themself. I have considered a motion to desysop, suspended for one month to allow Dbachmann time to explain the rationale behind their action, though that feels more like bureaucracy than decision and action. On the whole, I don't think anyone reasonably feels that Dbachmann's actions (unblock followed by failure to appropriately communicate) are acceptable in an admin. And while some time should be allowed for a response, I feel we're getting close to the time when a response is going to be too late. I don't think we need to wait two weeks, let alone a month or three months. If an admin has acted inappropriately and are not prepared to either explain themself or say sorry within a reasonable space of time, they no longer have my confidence or trust. SilkTork (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Topic Ban

Withdrawn

Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the pages about Race, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support (Topic Ban)

As has been pointed out, Race and Intelligence doesn't truly cover the scope of disruption Dbachmann has shown and since we're already taking action I think we should pass this as a committee rather than just letting some admin do it under CTOP where it'll have a slightly inferior (in my mind) scope. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Topic Ban)

While I think this may be necessary and correct, I am not happy to do so by arbcom motion based on the information we have seen (largely many years old) and without any comment from the subject. I have no objections to an individual doing so under WP:CT/R-I, but it should not be done at Arbcom level Worm^TT(talk) 07:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Desysop Dbachmann

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

For egregious misuse of an admin tool, for losing the trust or confidence of the community, and for failing to address the concerns of the community within a reasonable time period, while being aware of those concerns ~~and while editing on a sister project rather than address the concerns~~, contrary to the expectations of admin conduct and accountability, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) is desysopped. Dbachmann may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Enacted ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Three days is long enough for someone to respond after making a very bold and contentious admin action, and being made aware that the action was challenged. If an admin makes such an action, they have a responsibility to stay and explain their rationale or accept they have done wrong and apologise, committing not to make the same error again. Without such an explanation or apology, the admin not only loses the trust of the community, but also makes the community distrust the role of all admins. It is ArbCom's role to deal thoughtfully but decisively with such actions to ensure the community can retain trust in our procedures. SilkTork (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Dbachmann has responded, and asked to rest his case, it appears there will be no further input from him. I don't see the value of having a case, since it appears the evidence is already squarely before us and the issue is straightforward. ANI appears to be solving the T-ban issue, which leaves nothing further for us to do beyond consider a desysop. Since Dbachmann has not asked for a case, I see no reason to hold a full case on such a narrow issue. Examining Dbachmann's performance, he falls far short as an admin.
This issue begins when Money blocks Andew. I've gone through Andew's contribs, and it looks like a fair block well within the range of an admin to take. I don't see it as removing an ideological opponent in any way. Andew was a problematic editor: the sort of low-level but long-term problem that we often struggle with, and I applaud admins who are willing to put the work into dealing with such editors. Money's block rationale was in-depth, reasonable, and well researched. Then Dbachmann unblocks Andew, without prior consultation to Money. Except in the case of exceedingly bad, or obviously erroneous blocks, an admin should first discuss with the blocking admin. Dbachmann replies once to Money, and then goes radio silent on EnWP, but goes on to edit on DeWP. Given that he did respond here to us after a few days, I find the breach of ADMINACCT to be relatively minor. A minor breach is not itself a desysop worthy event, but it could contribute to a desysop. So was the unblock desysop worthy?
I think yes. Dbachmann's approach shows that his views on adminship are very outdated, that he understood that, and yet was unwilling to put in the time to update his understanding. He plainly notes that he got his tools back in 2004, and he was doing it the way I remember things should be done. But his last block or unblock was taken in 2011, a dozen years ago. An admin is expected to familiarize themselves with current policy before taking actions after an extended break. Dbachmann could have asked for advice or guidance first, read up on policy, or opened an AN review of the block. But instead, he immediately went for the unblock.
I do not find any of Dbachmann's rationales for the unblock convincing, and neither did ANI. In fact, of his rationales, I am rather concerned by This type of self-censorship is exactly what we need to avoid cultivating at all cost on Wikipedia, lest the overbearing ideological "mainstream" graudally [sic] drive away any dissenting views, which indicates that if anyone was taking an ideological action, it was Dbachmann himself. It is also a very misinformed view. Wikipedia isn't some grand battle of good and evil that must be precisely balanced with ideological fighters from "both sides" of a debate. It is a scholarly encyclopedia, and if contributors cannot behave themselves, they will be shown the door, no matter their views.
Dbachmann stands by his decision, and says that if he is wrong, then I have completely lost touch with the rules and power dynamics in the project today. Well I'm afraid I must agree with Dbachmann's assessment. It is apparent that he has not kept up with community norms. Given that adminship is a position of community trust, that Dbachmann is deeply out of touch with that community and its norms, and that he has taken a clearly erroneous admin action, I have no choice but to conclude that Dbachmann is no longer suitable for adminship. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expect one of the above motions will be the one to close this case, but I am supporting this one as well for two reasons: One is I support anything that will bring about the more-or-less inevatible desysop, the other is that Captain Eek has very clearly laid out what I find to be a compelling and well thought out rationale that a simple desysop is a sufficient response from this committee and there is no need to put any time frame on it, and I'd like to see this committee consider this more lightweight option in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read the above comment from Dbachmann as effectively ceding the opportunity to a case provided him. While I retain my support above for the other motions, I'll move across the line for this one as well. Izno (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to the same conclusion as Izno: this is Dbachmann telling us it is the only response we're going to get. As it is completely insufficient to what is required under policy, I find this the appropriate remedy. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking while we work out the wording. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Izno and Barkeep. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Beeblebrox. — Wug·a·po·des 01:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reservations about the motion, but I do support it now. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eloquently & thoroughly analysed by Eek. The threshold for any permission is not that you know off the top of your head how to use the permission in 100% of circumstances, but that you refrain from using the permission when uncertain or are out-of-date by a decade. Cabayi (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Eek - egregiously bad unblock. Shoutout to the "desysop proposal" subsection, as well; good idea and provided a clear picture of community views. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

~~Per previous commentary on having cases in absentia. Izno (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

I would rather we give them a chance to respond --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accept an immediate desysop in lieu of a case, I think we've got sufficient to go over the Level 2 Procedures. However, there are points in this motion I do not agree with. My primary concern with the text that is there - and while editing on a sister project rather than address the concerns - it has been shown that the timeline doesn't quite fit that. Also the tool misuse was not egregious, in my opinion. Finally, I believe that Dbachmann should be offered the opportunity of a full (expedited) case, per LEVEL2.
That being said my only significant concern is the above greentext. If it were struck, it would be sufficient to move support. Worm^TT(talk) 07:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richie started an AN discussion on the 27th to look into the incident. Deepfriedokra went to Dbachmann's German account on the 28th and provided a link to the AN discussion, saying in German, "We are waiting". Dbachmann continued editing for an hour and half, making 25 edits, after Deepfriedokra had provided that alert. [23]. I think there has been some conflation between the AN discussion and this case request in regards to some statements in this case request; however the wording in the motion intends to refer to community concerns as voiced in the AN thread which had started on the 27th, rather than this case request which started on the 28th. SilkTorkAway (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SilkTork. I'd still like the text removed as "editing on a sister project rather than address[ing] the concerns" is not policy breach by any means, even if it does draw the ire of community members. Worm^TT(talk) 08:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the last thing Dbachmann had said on en.wp was "If you find a third admin (ideally one without known prejudice or involvement) and they decide to overturn my action, I absolutely promise you will hear no further complaints from me." I understand that they did not feel they needed to comment further when the ANI thread was raised. Worm^TT(talk) 08:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SilkTorkAway (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but the two week motion is passing and I think we should just let that happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox neither other motion is passing. Both have 6 of the necessary 7. Izno (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Primefac and @Guerillero are the two active arbs who have not voted yet on that. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping, Barkeep49. I have voted pushing #Motion: Open and suspend case (2) into passing territory -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Math was never my strong suit, but I've got WP:AC open in another tab, and it says we have 11 active arbs as of the 28th. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. But General Notability is active on this case request so we start with 12, not the 11 noted at WP:AC, active arbs. This is why I added {{ACMajority}} to each motion to clarify things. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was away this weekend, and am leaning towards support of this motion based mainly on the reply by Dbachmann and the support vote by CaptainEek above, but will do my due diligence and re-read the rest of the commentary before proceeding. Primefac (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the same boat. Lean support but need time to catch up on reading. — Wug·a·po·des 22:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So now that Worm has (rightly) forced me to really re-read this motion (I read it when SilkTork posted, didn't expect to support, and then neglected to give it a thorough re-read before supporting yesterday, which is definitely bad on me) I don't think For egregious misuse of an admin tool is true. Unblocking someone without discussion is not, for me, egregious misuse of an admin tool. I also don't think ArbCom should start to respond to whoever happens to show up to a particular ANI as for losing the trust or confidence of the community. I don't like the precedent either of those sets. If someone wants to give that as their reasoning, great but I can't support that preamble for desysopping even though I very much want to support doing so now. I would prefer something simple like For failing to meet the expectations of admin conduct and accountability or even more ideally For failing to meet the expectations required by the Administrator policy, Dbachmann is desysopped and may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Ping SilkTorkAway and Worm That Turned. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated my preference against "egregious", so I'm certainly on board with the simple or ideal alternative. Worm^TT(talk) 15:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a side effect of this motion, I'm grateful that we have been spared from making two weeks the new ADMINACCT waiting period. Cabayi (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with Barkeep or anyone editing the motion. I'm away at the moment, and find it awkward to edit on my phone. SilkTorkAway (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions of constituencies

Initiated by Ameen Akbar (talk) at 16:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

امین اکبر (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

diff of notification Saad Ali Khan Pakistan

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have tried to solve is issue in very polite manner. Admins can see the discussion pages, linked below.

Statement by امین اکبر

In my opinion constituencies, page titles should be as per the official name of the Election Commission of Pakistan. While another user is redirecting the old page to a new constituency which was created after delimitation without consulting or notifying other concerned editors. I and other users agreed to remove the area name from the title and keep it just numbers, but Mr. Saad Ali Khan want to impose his own wish on all pages. See the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics to understand the matter.

Statement by Saad Ali Khan Pakistan

Hello FIrst of all, I updated constituency pages as of 2022 Delimitations. When I saw talk pages of constituencies there was no one to talk to and when I completed updating constituency pages. person named ameen akbar came out and started to argue. He is just making this a so-called dispute. If you see his contributions he has done nothing to improve Pakistani pages on Wikipedia. If you visit and see Urdu version of Wikipedia where he is admin, everyone can see Urdu Wikipedia is in worst condition and don't have quality content. It takes months for just review new article.

He is just making false blame that I am imposing my wish on Wikipedia. I even told him and others that my intention is just to update Pakistani pages on Wikipedia like Indian, American and other countries etc but he is still arguing and misguiding people. Constituency pages names are same as named by ECP (Please visit PP-1 Attock-I) but he still argues and showing this as dispute among others. Because of people like him, Pakistani pages are outdated and lack quality data.

Statement by Robert McClenon (Naming Dispute)

It isn't clear from reading this case request whether there is a conduct dispute at all. When I first saw that the case involved Pakistan, which is a contentious topic, I had two questions. First, is another Pakistan case needed to review the restrictions and enforcement regime? Second, is Arbitration Enforcement needed because of disruptive editing in a contentious area? The answers are no, and no.

This appears to be a situation where an editor knows that he wants assistance, and doesn't have a clue where to get assistance, and knows that there is an ArbCom. The filing party started an RFC on the naming of constituencies about a week ago. The best course of action at this point is to let the RFC run for the remainder of the 30 days, and to advise the filing editor to be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Naming conventions of constituencies: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Naming conventions of constituencies: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Decline as premature. Please review the other dispute resolution avenues available to you. Izno (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Izno. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Izno. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5