Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Dbachmann	Motions	28 March 2023	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Dbachmann

Initiated by Clovermoss🍀 (talk) at 11:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Clovermoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

Statement by Clovermoss

We don't have a community desysop process but I think it's clear that Dbachmann's conduct is unbecoming of an admin and this is the best option for doing something about that. Especially when they're saying stuff like [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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Deepfriedokra {Non-party}

• While I've expressed my concerns at the ANI thread, I think an ArbCom case is premature. We might get to the need for an ArbCom case, but the ANI thread has not played out. Dbachmann has not yet responded, and despite all the furor, the ANI thread is not yet 24 hours old.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fwiw, I left a note for DBachmann on their DEWIKI talk page. They have edited there since then. I left another message. Looks like I was premature in my assessment that a Case request is premature. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: To be fair, I left the second message after he had quit for the day. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  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)

Statement by Hammersoft {Non-party}

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)

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)

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)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades {Non-party}

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)

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 {Non-party}

If I'm not confusing the timestamps, Dbachmann has continued to edit at dewiki after DFO placed a notice on their talk there. I think the committee needs to consider taking the case. Valereee (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)

Statement by Black Kite

Per the comments at Floq above and my comment at the dramaboard, this could very simply be resolved by someone indeffing DBachmann as NOTHERE until they decide the community is worthy of a response. I'm quite happy to do it. Let us know, ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

Why do only admins get the option to have their case scheduled at a time of their convenience during the next 3 months? I was just named a party to a case over my objection and nobody asked me if I'd like to take a break and have the case whenever I come back sometime in the next three months. I hope Arbcom stops offering this option to only admins. (Alternatively, I totally support just indef'ing as a normal admin action per WP:Hate is disruptive.) Levivich (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin {Non-party}

I don't have an opinion about whether this action by Dbachmann, and the diffs from 15 years ago, warrant an arbitration case. However if Arbcom does open a case, I suggest that it should be about more than just Dbachmann, because there are other issues in relation to the same set of articles that should also be examined. I summarized some of these in an earlier arbitration request: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Statement_by_Ferahgo In that request, CaptainEek [11] and Barkeep49 [12] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

Statement byNorth8000 {Non-party}

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)

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[13] 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[14] 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)

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)

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)

Statement by Catfish Jim and the soapdish{Non-party}

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)

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

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.

ArbCom, please look at the discussion about the Dysgenics article here, [15], especially the last few comments, and also the related revert here. [16] 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. [17] 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)

Dbachmann: Clerk notes

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

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

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)

  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)

  @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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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 [18], 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)
• 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)

  @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)

  @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)

• 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)

  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)

  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 RDA process was back then. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

Motion: Open and suspend case

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

1. 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)

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)

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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)