Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deeceevoice (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 18 November 2007 (→Comment from user xyzisequation: clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:21, 18 November 2007 by Deeceevoice (talk | contribs) (→Comment from user xyzisequation: clarification)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This user seems to be very knowledgeable about a number of topics and has made significant contributions to Misplaced Pages, but his recent behaviour seems to demonstrate that he has little tolerance for editors with whom he disagrees. He has failed to assume good faith and has engaged in edit warring a number of times. When called upon to substantiate his edits, he has resorted at times to personal attacks. On at least two occasions recently, he has acknowledged his edit warring, but has attempted to justify his actions, calling revert warring "necessary." He displays civility issues when dealing with people with whom he disagrees and seemingly does not hesitate to charge "trolling" for positions opposed to his own, and when challenged on his sources to substantiate his position, he has resorted to personal attacks rather than simply providing references or even meaningful edit notes. It should also be noted that this is the second RfC issued on this user, the other being as recent as July of this year, only four months ago.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

At the very least, he should be reminded that he should respond to users with respect, even if he thinks they are trolls, explain his edits, avoid revert wars, or in the case of real vandalism, treat it as such. Also, as he is an admin, he should be reminded that he should set the example for other editors, and not consider himself seemingly above the law which applies to all editors.

Description

Articles Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians are both controversial articles. Dbachmann has been editing them in what seems to be an effort to suit his particular POV, edit-warring changes he disagrees with, rather than discuss them calmly and explain his position based on sources, routinely calling editors who disagree with him "trolls", and being generally rude and dismissive of editors who disagree with him, even when his position is demonstrated to be clearly against the consensus of the other editors on the article.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

WP:NPA

13:56 (Talk:Afrocentrism)
15:33(User_talk:Dbachmann)(comparing the edits of another editor to the actions of Willy on Wheels)

WP:CIVIL

13:53 (Talk:Afrocentrism)
19:02 (Talk:Afrocentrism)

WP:AGF

12:44 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians) (edit summary: "page full of trolling")

WP:3RR (or just edit warring)

1-12:36 (Afrocentrism)
2-13:01 (Afrocentrism)
3-13:43 (Afrocentrism)
4-14:00 (Afrocentrism)

(another, stopped at 3 RV because the article was protected)

1-19:15 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians)
2-12:44 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians)
3-13:42 (Race_of_ancient_Egyptians)

Other problematic behavior:

  • Insists his position is right, but does not back it up with sources
    • From this diff (User_talk:Dbachmann) I reverted blatant trolling... Really blatant POV which obviously violates NPOV by "simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong", may be treated like vandalism and reverted. then goes on to say to justify his own reversion of the work of another editor he disagrees with (Talk:Afrocentrism), with the sole justification that it is "flawed (from) beginning to end", without any other explanation.
  • Condescending attitude
  • Blatant disregard for some Misplaced Pages rules, in this case WP:3RR
  • Seemingly holding others accountable to a higher standard than he is, when after trying to justify edit warring, he has this to say about other people who edit-war:
    • From this diff (User_talk:Dbachmann) "What we need to do is build up enough pressure until somebody can be bothered to enforce policy." (ie. ban/block users who he is reverting) "I would love to do that, but I am afraid my constant anti-trolling efforts have given me a reputation of "incivility" (the standard cry of frustrated pov-pushers) that would make it difficult to appear on the scene as the badass admin acting as the redeeming scourge." (He subsequently asked another admin to do it for him here.)

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:3RR
  4. WP:AGF

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

here he refuses a scheme aimed at resolving edit-warring on the Afrocentrism page.
here he is being warned his comments have been taken off the page for being uncivil.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. -- Ramdrake (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. -- futurebird (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. -- ~Jeeny 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Taharqa (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. , Caveat, I certify the 'basis' of the dispute but I don't actually agree with Ramdrake's summary of it. Wikidudeman 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. -- deeceevoice (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. . JJJamal (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by User:Akhilleus

Just a short note: two of the edits listed as violating 3RR are contiguous: 12:36 (Afrocentrism), 12:37 (Afrocentrism). For the purpose of 3RR, contiguous edits are treated as one edit, therefore the diffs listed by Ramdrake don't show a 3RR violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's been fixed now.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Comment from Picaroon

Dbachmann does a lot of good work for Misplaced Pages, especially on India-related articles, where he works hard to counter nationalism with more neutral versions of articles. His contributions to race-related disputes have been noticeably less productive, however, as he has been incivil (much of this is caused by goading from others, but that is nevertheless not an excuse), used rollback in content disputes even after I requested him to not do this, months ago, and violated the three-revert rule on at least one, and probably more, occasions. He was recently blocked for a combination of rollback misuse and a three-revert rule violation, but was quickly unblocked.

He is a positive influence in other areas of Misplaced Pages, but on race-related articles he has not adhered to policies; if admins can't behave in accordance with our standards, why will others make the effort? I do not think he should be desysopped, but do feel that a commitment to not accuse others of trolling and/or vandalism without cause, and to not use rollback in content disputes, is going to be necessary, as is a greater willingness to cooperate with editors he is in disagreement with. If he can agree to these suggestions, then I would expect the three who have endorsed this request and the others he has tangled with on race-related articles to do the same.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Picaroon (t) 00:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Ramdrake (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Taharqa (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. futurebird (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Alun during none of this did Dbachman ever take this to the talk page. (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Wikidudeman 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. ~Jeeny 21:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. deeceevoice (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC) In checking dBachmann's talk pages (archived versions also), I see this sort of behavior is a pattern across categories -- not just "race"-related articles -- but one which is certainly conspicuously in evidence in articles treating non-Western subject matter, which may evidence some ethnic-based animus or aggressively/antagonistically Eurocentrist tendencies
  10. JJJamal (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. SqueakBox 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from (maybe involved?) Warlordjohncarter

Having dealt with the editor in question, I have noted that he is willing to be at least ordinarily, and sometimes extraordinarily civil, toward others when civility is also displayed by others. In several cases, that is not the case. While he can be reasonably criticized for his occasional misconduct toward others, I believe it creates an unbalanced perspective to ignore the regular insults and attacks leveled at him and others made by others on these pages. In general, I have gotten the impression that he does try to ensure the content adheres to what he perceives as being the fundamental policies, which do not include a consensus of what may be potentially biased editors involved regarding a given page or content. I have also noted that he does try to bring in other parties to the discussion of these matters, although the success of those attempts varies considerably through no fault of his own. So, while to a degree I can and do believe that some of his conduct on some of these issues can be and does deserve attention, and a degree of rebuke, I have difficulty faulting his goals or intentions, which do seem to be almost solely based on the issues of NPOV, Reliability and Due weight. In many of these articles relating to race with which he deals, he is one of the few parties invovled who is not intimately connected in a very personal way with these racial issues, and I would hope that, rather than regularly attacking or insulting him, the other editors involved would welcome the involvement of what is essentially a disinterested third party who has shown a remarkable willingness to tolerate abusive misconduct directed at him whose own objectives seem to be only ensuring that the content in question itself adheres to core[REDACTED] policies.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Wikidudeman

Editor and administrator Dbachmann is a very valuable editor and helps the project a lot. This goes without saying, however Dbachmann has engaged in edit warring over content of articles and is often uncivil. Generally his justification for such behavior is the assertion that the editors he is reverting or insulting are "trolls" or "vandals" or "disruptive editors", etc. These are not justifications or excuses for either edit warring or incivility. The proper methods for dealing with true trolls or disruptive editors is neither edit warring with them or insulting them. In my personal experience with Dbachmann he has engaged in content edit warring with several editors on at least two articles. Here are some examples of his content edit warring and revert warring on the Race of ancient Egyptians article: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Here is the note about edit warring on the Egyptian race article that I left on his talk page, an attempt to resolve the issue which did not succeed. Dbachmann has also revert warred on the Afrocentrism article: 1, 2, 3, 4, plus: 1, 2. Here is the note about edit warring on the Afrocentrism article. Dbachmann has also acted uncivilly towards other editors and some examples included but are not limited to: 1, 2 and 3. The purpose of this comment from me on this RFC is only to show Dbachmann that the community agrees that incivility and revert warring are unacceptable even if you are an administrator and even if the people you are insulting or being rude to or are revert warring with are legitimate "trolls", which doesn't seem to actually be the case in most of these circumstances. You don't insult or revert war with disruptive editors, you go through the proper channels and warn them and if they continue you have them blocked. Revert warring with them or insulting them accomplishes nothing and only results in more problems. My hope is that Dbachmann will understand this and will refrain from continuing such behavior in the future. Wikidudeman 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. futurebird (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Jeeny 21:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Taharqa (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Ramdrake (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. deeceevoice (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC) I endorse the summary, but not the hands-off suggested outcome (no double standard for admins; I endorse something substantive in terms of consequences)
  7. JJJamal (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Pigman

These comments address general behaviour beyond the initial statements of those who opened this RfC.

I hesitated for a long while before deciding to post this and I sincerely mean it when I say it saddens me to do so. Dbachmann is obviously dedicated to contributing content to Misplaced Pages with the intent of improving the encyclopedia. In many, possibly even the large majority of his edits, he diligently and obviously adds and improves content of articles. However, when he disagrees with others on how best to do this, he can get contentious and extremely pushy. In my experiences with him, he has not violated 3RR but he does at times engage in slow revert wars, reverting once a day over long periods of time. In my experience, he is often inattentive to details when he edits, from deleting sourced text to rearranging content in ways detrimental to the article. He sometimes acts like his view of content is the only valid one and is reluctant to compromise. He sometimes inserts unsourced personal POV in place of sourced text and can became angry or dismissive when sources are requested from him. He has sometimes requested changes to an article and, after the change is implemented, complains that a lack in the article directly created by those requested changes needs to be addressed. When compromising on editing an article, he does so with ill grace and sometimes with veiled or obvious threats, such as threatening to delete or massively rewrite an established article. He shows a general intolerance of opposing viewpoints. Once he decides on his personal vision of an article or a group of articles, he will often push towards it with little regard for others' input or suggestions. While these tactics and actions may serve good stead in combating fringe theories, trolls or POV pushers, they also seem to permeate his interactions with almost everyone he engages with on WP. Those who thwart his goals are, in effect, trolls to him because he seems to believe his goals and judgments are superior to almost any editor in his path. While he significantly improves the content of the encyclopedia in many ways, he also significantly degrades the collegial and respectful atmosphere we try to cultivate between regular Wikipedian editors.

The "Desired Outcome" in the initial statement above seems rather toothless and ineffectual. If mere chastising or opprobrium were enough to alter dab's behaviour, his interactions would have shown the effect by now. It appears as if he views others' concerns in these matters as annoyances, frivolous and false accusations rather than reflections of his own violations of community standards of behaviour.

Desired Outcome: I believe any outcome from this RfC should be more than stern words. I believe this RfC embodies a longstanding and continuing community grievance with dab's attitude and the result should be more than a slap on the wrist. I have no wish to censure or castigate Dbachmann, an editor with many good qualities and contributions to Misplaced Pages, but I would gently suggest the following: That Dbachmann take a wikibreak and seriously re-evaluate his relationship to the project and in particular his relationship and attitude toward other good faith editors. Pigman/trail 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -Jeeny 06:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Ramdrake (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. deeceevoice (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC) - habitual hostility and revert warring, which he defends as "necessary," toward other editors utilized to bludgeon others with his POV; I suggest, however, some sort of enforceable hiatus/block/ban from 'pedia so that he can rethink his admin responsbilities, how he treats other editors & how his behavior negatively impacts the project
  5. JJJamal (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Taharqa (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from :bloodofox:

Recently I've also had issues with this particular administrator very similar to the issues you've mentioned above. Not only is he exceptionally uncivil to the point of blatant rudeness and insults (as repeatedly noted all over Dab's talk page by numerous users and here plus the various other times he's been brought into question through official circuits) but also has a habit of reverting without note, as recently can be seen here:

With this particular example, one may also note that he's taken a short unelaborated quip from a small review that is basically an off the cuff insult - that the party in question would obviously have an issue with - and then used it as a the descriptor of the subject. This is clearly an attempt to inject an article with opinion by framing quotes, which violates WP:NPOV. The response? A simple reversion on his part without explanation. Since then I've reasserted my position a few times and brought it on to the talk page but it's like pulling teeth with him to get him to follow basic Misplaced Pages policy when his opinion is involved. This is not OK and would definitely not fly with a regular user.. but from an administrator?

I've had past disputes with Dbachmann over similar circumstances (, for example) and I've noticed he's becoming more bullying lately. I simply don't have the time to go through his edits and pick out what he's called (or lumping together with via "See also" sections or bracketed next to) "fascists" or "Neo-Nazis" today by and large without a source. These edits are all over Misplaced Pages by Dab on all sorts of articles dealing with obscure subjects. They equate to very serious and far reaching ramifications for the parties accused and we must be extremely careful to properly go about policy with these subjects. Because of his dealings with other editors as well as his reckless usage of these terms and the associations they bring on to their subjects, I think action needs to be taken. :bloodofox: 08:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Pigman/trail 07:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ramdrake (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. deeceevoice (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC) absolutely; my ANI and pending year-long block on unsubstantiated charges are a case in point re his ad hominem attacks (as a smokescreen for indefensible revert warring) can cause harm to another editor who, in fact, has edited in good faith. I support a block for some appropriately meaningful period of time, given his administrator status, the habitual nature of his abuses and their impact, and temporary de-sysopping, upon which time his admin privileges would be reinstated -- if in the interim he has demonstrated no further such conduct as noted in this RfC
  4. JJJamal (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Taharqa (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from user xyzisequation

Dbachmann may be a good contributor but a really bad bad admin. He comments to users' edits are a bunch of insults. I appreciate this Rfc and having so many users testifying against him is in itself a proof of his behavior. He should at least be suspended for a while for his actions. Xyzisequation (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. deeceevoice (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC) A rather unfortunate blanket condemnation of someone who clearly has been a benefit to the project in some areas, but judging from his behavior in the precipitating incidents and in other instances I've uncovered as well, this is certainly true in significant part; he sets a poor example, discourages/assails editors who contribute in good faith, and seems to expect a pass because of his adminship -- and, indeed, his disruptive conduct does appear repeatedly to have been overlooked; I support this user's suggestion for a block for some appropriately meaningful period of time, given his administrator status, the nature of his abuses and their impact, and temporary de-sysopping, with restoration of admin privileges conditional upon no more such incidents as those cited in this RfC in the intervening period

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3 Add topic