Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 4

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: 22:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC).

---

• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Statement of the dispute

Administrator Dbachmann (commonly known as "dab") has declined to engage in a substantive discussion about his use of editor/administrator tools, specifically rollback and protection, as well as his treatment of an IP editor on the page Telugu language, a page to which he has made substantial contributions. He sees no problem with his actions and is dismissive of a reference to a prior warning by the Arbitration Committee regarding use of the same tools in content disputes. Administrator Doug and others have attempted to address the matter on his talk page at User_talk:Dbachmann#Telugu (permalink). He shows a manifest unwillingness to consider seriously the possibility that he has violated Wikipedia policies.

Summary of events: Dbachmann used rollback to change an edit by an IP back to an edit that Dbachmann had previously made to a section header. After the IP reverted this edit and templated Dbachmann, Dbachmann substantially undid the IP's edit and semi-protected the page. There was no history of IP vandalism and the IP had made numerous good faith edits to the page previously. The edit in question by the IP contained a well-referenced correction to number vandalism in addition to the section header. Two administrators and an editor subsequently criticized Dbachmann for use of his tools on his user talkpage, and he dismissed, declined to respond to, or rationalized the concerns away.

Desired outcome

We would like Dbachmann to acknowledge that:

1. The rollback guideline says that use of the rollback tool for edits like this one is not appropriate – "Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory."
2. That a "content dispute" is not defined by a situation where there is disagreement among experts, but where there is good faith disagreement among editors. Even if an edit is blatantly false to the eyes of a subject matter expert, that does not make it vandalism. It should be discussed on the Article talk page and/or the relevant Users' talk page if necessary, and at minimum meaningful edit summaries should be used.
3. The semi-protection policy says that use of semi-protection requires a recent history of substantial IP vandalism such that the problem cannot be dealt with by blocking.
4. The use of semi-protection by an administrator on a page they have substantively edited should be avoided if there is any possible question of the act furthering that administrator's position in a content dispute (i.e. where protection isn't founded on countering blatant vandalism). For such cases, the administrator should seek independent administrator intervention through Requests for page protection.
5. That semi-protection prevents non-auto-confirmed users from editing. It does not solely affect unregistered users.
6. That editors are permitted to edit without a registered account, and that their contributions should be treated with appropriate respect, and appropriate communication with them is equally necessary (WP:BITE). Some allowance for not quite following Wikipedia rules/practice must also be made (the Level 3 vandal warning to Dbachmann for misusing rollback was inappropriate, but so was his response). (struck as this is part of the background, not Desired Outcome)
7. That everyone makes mistakes occasionally, and that attempts by others to point out one's mistakes should not be met with stonewalling, straw-men arguments or hostility. That being right on content is not a defence against violating behavioural or tool-use guidelines.

Description

Pre-history of the Telugu incident

Dbachmann has edited Telugu language since this edit on 2 August 2007; though his recent edits started with this one on 5 October 2009; after that date he edited the article 14 times prior to the appearance of IP: 91.130.188.8, including a series of 11 consecutive edits here. The IP's first edit to the page on 16 October is shown here and it made 7 edits to the page before the first interaction with Dbachmann. On 31 October 2009 Dbachmann made this edit, without edit summary, changing a section heading from Earliest traces in epigraphy to Lexical traces in Prakrit epigraphy.

Telugu incident

On 2 November another IP made this unreferenced edit, changing the primacy of the language within India from third to second. At the next edit IP 91.130.188.8 reverted the primacy to the "third" and provided a citation to an official Indian Government census website. In the same edit it changed two headings, including the one listed above that Dbachmann had edited and made another edit. In the next edit, Dbachmann rolled back the edit with with the default edit summary; thereby removing the cited "third" for the incorrect "second" and restoring his own heading. In the next edit, the IP undid Dbachmann's rollback with an edit summary of vandalism and then templated Dbachmann with {{uw-vandalism3}} [1]. Dbachmann responded by substantially reverting the IPs edits and semi-protecting the page with a series of three edits starting here; he did not leave an edit summary, except for the default edit summary for the edit that actually protected the page. He did not contact the IP on the IP's user talk page, or make any comment on the article's talk page.

Followup to incident by the IP

At this point the IP started a thread on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) which is archived here. The substance of that ANI is not particularly relevant, most of those responding focused on the IP's templating of an administrator. However, Dbachmann's only comment there is instructive of his general attitude in this matter [2].

After that thread was closed by User:Toddst1, the IP opened a second ANI thread here. The first half of that ANI thread is of little relevance to Dbachmmann's conduct and mostly lambastes the IP for not using the article talk page but after Dbachmann comments [3] there begin to be comments critical of Dbachmann's protection of the page; in particular his failure to consider blocking for actions by a single IP.

Followup to incident by others

Administrator Rd232 started a related Administrators' noticeboard thread on the general issue of how IPs were being responded to on ANI here. Doug posted to Dbachmman's talk page here; Dbachmmann's response shows a theory of protection policy substantially at variance with WP:Protection policy. Rd232 first addressed Dbachmann on the matter here and editor (Rollbacker/Autoreviewer) Nathan commented here. Dbachmann responds here, in which he clarifies his position that this is not a content dispute because the IP was blatantly wrong in its edit to the section header. Other than the comment at each of the ANI threads, this thread on his talk page is the extent of his response. Throughout he is dismissive of the result in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann, dismissive of the IP editor (distinguishing him as a "logged out user"), and dismissive of the concerns of Doug and Rd232 as well as editor Nathan. The entire discussion is permlinked here. On 6 November, based on the second ANI thread and the lack of meaningful discussion from Dbachmann, Doug unprotected Telugu language.

Further attempts were made to have Dbachmann acknowledge current policy on semi-protection and use of rollback. This was unsuccessful, with Dbachmann taking advantage of another administrator highlighting a minor aspect of the issue (was Dbachmann "involved"; can "patently nonsensical" changes be rolled back without explanation) to duck the entirely straightforward semi-protection / rollback issues. This culminated in Dbachmann making a personal attack on Rd232 [4].

Powers misused

• Protection (log):

1. Telugu language

• Rollback

1. Telugu language ([5])

Applicable policies

• Protection policy

1. Semi-protected a page due to an editing dispute with an IP editor while reverting to his own preferred version (one he had created).

• Rollback guideline

1. Used rollback to revert a good faith edit to his preferred version of the article.

• Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Talking_and_editing

1. Failed to explain edits, in edit summaries, article talk page, or user talk page. (Yet justified semi-protection as forcing the IP to use the talk page. [6])

• WP:BITE

1. Failed to make a relative newcomer feel welcome. (They had figured out how to leave a templated vandal warning, but the clearly inappropriate use of it marks them as a relative newcomer. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...") Dbachmann seems to believe, without any evidence, that the user is a "logged out user", i.e. an experienced editor sockpuppeting. [7]

• Civility and No personal attacks

1. Was aggressive and uncivil to the IP in question, posting a dismissive response to their talk page, without any hint of friendliness, never mind admitting error [8], even though the first ANI thread at that point included remarks that he should explain his actions (comments he certainly had seen, since he posted dismissively in that thread prior to posting on the IP talk page).
2. Personally attacked an editor seeking to clarify that he at least recognised the principles of the relevant policies.[9]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. See discussion at Dbachmann's talk page [[10]]
2. See discussion at ANI [[11]]
3. See discussion at ANI (second thread) [[12]]
4. Evidence that user was previously "reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions".[13]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Rd232 ^talk 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

1.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional view by Rd232

I'd like to add, in addition to the above, and partly in response to other comments, that a lot of the issue here is poor communication. Dab's actions may be justifiable, yes. But they are not prima facie compatible with various policies (which is why explanation was needed), and despite numerous opportunities to explain himself, has failed to do so. Let's list the missed opportunities:

• edit summary for the reversion of the IP's edit: no useful edit summary, since he used rollback. No use of article talk or user talk either
• edit summary for the re-reversion of the IP's edit: ditto.
• protecting the page: no use of article talk or user talk either
• The initial ANI thread (produced this gem of an explanation: "I am, of course, happy to discuss my edits, with people interested in working on the article, on the article's talkpage. What we have here is a logged-out editor edit-warring, wikilawyering and posting bogus warnings to my talkpage. All of this, mind you, without bothering to make a single comment on the article talkpage. I have semiprotected the page to stop the anon's misbehavior. Let them use their account, or come to talk and make an actual point.")
• Subsequent discussion on Dab's talk page.

The one time Dab goes out of his way to communicate (during the ANI discussion), it's posting this to the IP talk page: "You want to stop your pointless and futile wikilawyering now. If you have a point to make, raise it on the talkpage of the relevant article, in a civil and constructive manner. I also strongly recommend that if you want to edit antagonistically, you start using an account. People have limited patience with IP adresses spamming noticeboards with bogus complaints."

The issue continues: here, at Telugu language again, on 11 Nov, is Dab reverting an anon IP with edit summary "rv anon tripe, courtesy of the "semiprotection is evil" brigade." Disregarding the latter as irrelevant, calling it "tripe" is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. And two points were reverted, one of which ("Italian of the East") is covered in a section further down the page, and the other in the introduction. What sort of editing behaviour is this?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rd232 ^talk 14:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Hipocrite

1. This is a tempest in a teapot.
2. The IP editor was trolling, and not a little bit.
3. As such, the IP editor should have just been blocked, as opposed to SEMIing the article.
4. Administrators who deal with difficult issues deserve our support, not our nitpicking at every minor mistake they make. I suggest that this RFC is unhelpful, as there are terribly unclean hands (specifically, the IP editor should be, and probably is banned). I further suggest that the creators of this RFC get involved in solving at least one ethnic dispute that they don't care about themselves, to see how terrible it is.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Hipocrite (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Of course, which parts here I agree/disagree with in this summary can become clear from seeing my other endorsements and talk page comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Endorse 1 and 4 (but don't disagree with 2 and 3). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Endorse all, especially 1 and 4 SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
6. A typhoon in a Gaiwan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional note

To all admins who are saying that dab should have asked someone else to handle it - are you volunteering? If you are, are you actually going to take the actions that need taking to solve the problem? If you are, how long will you stick with dealing with lunatic nationalists before you flee? Noting that prior promises to deal with issues like this have been vapid, lilly-livered or temporary, why should anyone believe your promise is different?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Endorse now that Dieter has been proved right, and the IP is indeed the sock of a banned user, as was perhaps predictable. Moreschi (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Believe me, these admins have no clue what these POV wars entail. Not the foggiest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view Fut.Perf.

I have a lot of respect for Dbachmann's continued efforts to uphold encyclopedicity against those of our "editors" that are more motivated by puerile patriotism than by the quest for academic quality. It should always be made clear that he and others who do this hard and thankless work deserve the full support and solidarity of the community. That said, I do fear that Dbachmann has dealt with so many disruptive IP users and SPAs over the years that he may now tend to give new voices in the crowd that treatment a little bit too quickly. In the present case, I cannot see anything obviously disruptive in the IP's behaviour prior to the original incident. If the IP turned aggressive and trollish afterwards, I cannot say whether that was because they had disruptive intentions from the start, as Hipocrite seems to believe, or because Dab's treatment of them just rubbed them the wrong way so badly. In any case, I must agree that the Protection Policy is indeed against Dab in this instance, and I would feel better about calling the whole thing a storm in a teacup and just moving on if Dab would admit that he made a mistake in this case.

Users who endorse this summary:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Given the new information now available about the IP being a banned sock, I retract this statement. My only remaining (minor) issue is that if Dab had recognised the IP's pattern as that of a likely banned user, he could have been clearer about that in his first comments. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Rd232 ^talk 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
2.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
4. I feel that this was just "human error" on dab's part -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Agree - anyone who works on debt collection starts to view everyone as a defaulter, work in the complaints department for any length of time and customers turn into whiners. I'm sure it's no different here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
6. The ArbCom case was rather clear about this type of action being inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Kathryn NicDhàna

1. Dbachmann works on articles prone to trolling, weirdness and ethnic strife. This can be a thankless task, and it can lead to burnout. When one works on articles where too often it is you against a bunch of trolling, it can lead to cynicism and plain-speaking, which can also be perceived as incivility. If one is not careful, this can leak over into interactions with productive editors.
2. Dab is a committed, productive editor. He is a diligent contributor who creates and improves articles. Sometimes he works in areas into which other stable editors are loathe to wade.
3. A priority of WP is to retain productive editors.
4. Productive, committed editors should not be sacrificed for disruptive IP editors.
5. At some points in the past I have disagreed with Dab, perceiving him as pushy and inflexible. He has at times tried to impose his vision on a series of articles, and in the past it was sometimes hard to get him to collaborate. However, I feel Dab has improved a great deal and is now a much more flexible and collaborative editor. I appreciate his work here. Looking back on our past disagreements, I can see ways in which he was right to advocate for the changes he wanted.
6. If Dab was involved in anything resembling a content dispute, he should have had an uninvolved admin block the IP or semi-prot the page. However, I can see why he did it the way he did. Not the best choice, but worse mistakes have been made here. People have told him what they think of it. I don't think any action is required against Dab except that he be aware of this and bear it in mind.
7. I strongly recommend that Dab remember to use edit summaries. Edit summaries and talk pages are pretty crucial to collaboration. In the situations where I've worked with Dab recently, I've seen him use the talk pages and collaborate with other editors in a respectful manner.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
2. - Pigman☿/talk 23:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. noting that in the RFC no action is called for against Dab, only by him. The episode may well have been driven by his initial use of rollback, which leaves no edit summary. Rd232 ^talk 08:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
5. - Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC) We can't afford to lose this editor -- see especially points 1 and 2.
6. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Yes, seeing as this IP was very likely a reincarnation. Moreschi (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Especially 3 and 4; Wikipedia needs more DaBs SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Of course, which parts here I agree/disagree with in this summary can become clear from seeing my other endorsements and talk page comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Kwami

Are we serious? Dab reverts an anon IP, once, and the IP tags him for "vandalism" and runs to ANI. All this without so much as a word on the talk page of the article. What a bunch of tripe. If we feel the semi-protection is going overboard, one of us can (and has) undo it. End of problem. The IP can then take up his cause on the talk page, and stop wasting our time.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. kwami (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. The filing party should be admonished for the way they have handled this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC). Very clear there is sustained POV-pushing and sock puppetry going on here. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC) This.
5. Now CU confirmed as a sock. Why am I not surprised? Moreschi (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Surprised that Doug and Rd232 devoted no time to checking whether the IP was a sock, as now confirmed by YellowMonkey. Perhaps Doug should also be taking a wikibreak. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
9. :) and endorse Mathsci's post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Elen of the Roads

Dbachmann made a procedural fox pox and the IP made a bigtime tactical error. No-one got blocked (although some of the contributors here and at ANI could do with toning down the hostility to the IP, who is NOT the editor who brought this RfC). Suggest reminding dab that he's not alone, and that other admins will be pleased to offer advice, step in with the tools when he has become involved etc, and letting it go.

Users who endorse this summary

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment redacted in the light of Yellow Monkey's confirmation of socking. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by John Carter

Dab made it clear in his statements that he thought the IP was being used by an individual who had an account at some time. The use of ANI and a vandalism template do tend to support this belief, at least indicating more familiarity with wikipedia than we expect from most IPs. If dab had some reason to believe that the IP were in fact a specific individual with an account, possibly with whom he had had dealings before, I think all of us would probably agree that what he did was right. But, even if the other editors invovled in a given article are all or almost all problematic, there are several admins out there who would be more than happy to help out and do the admin functions if requested and reasonable, and it would probably be in everyone's best interests if dab were to contact one of them in the future to start getting involved, maybe directly if desired for possibly quicker response. I would count myself honored to receive such a request.

Users who ensorse this summary

1. --John Carter (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. I'm not an admin, but dab shouldn't feel he's trying to hold back the sea by himself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Not an admin either, but carry plenty of battle scars from POV wars of yesteryear, many fought on dab's side. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside/semi-involved view by Ncmvocalist

Administrators who deal with difficult issues deserve our support, not nitpicking at every mistake they make. A priority of Wikipedia is to retain productive committed contributors; they should not be sacrificed for disruptive IP editors. Dbachmann (Dab) is a committed, productive contributor, who sometimes edits in areas in which other stable editors are loathe to wade. This RfC/U does not benefit this project.

About requesting others for intervention and prior interaction with Dab
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don’t deny that asking others to get involved isn’t a bad idea (especially fellow admins), but given how his calls have fallen on deaf ears in the past, it can become a futile exercise that takes unreasonable amounts of time. I recall one situation where I had to echo those requests of Dab quite a bit (over a number of months) before the single disruptive user was taken care of. In any case, Dab’s approach since the previous arbitration has significantly improved; be it in his use of edit-summaries, comments on talk pages, collaboration with other productive contributors, removing the true source of disruption on this project (problem users) – the latter needs to happen more efficiently within the community. WikiProject India is losing many of its established committed productive good contributors. When rules-lawyering has enabled problem editors to get away with anything (including how this has escalated here), users have less incentive to remain on this project.

After semi was lifted, Dab was vocal in his disagreement with how policy had to be handled, but particularly, the way the incident was being handled by the filing party, Rd232 and Doug. Despite this, he did not indicate that he would apply protection in the same way if encountered with the same situation, and he also did not wheelwar. This was the point where the dispute should have ended as it was resolved and nothing truly needed to be acknowledged; Dab responded to concerns raised and was clearly bearing them in mind – end of story. Sadly, the filing party decided against that.

Rd232 repeatedly nagged Dab to respond to every single thing said by Rd232. Understandably, Dab was frustrated with this, and made an exasperated comment in response (incorrectly characterised as a personal attack by Rd232 when he wrote the filing party statement). Rd232 must have gotten pissed off that Dbachmann wouldn’t bow down to the filing party and tell them everything they wanted him to say, and so this RfC/U was filed with that exact desired outcome – Doug made it clear where this would go next early in the dispute: "arbitration". So both users knew the unpleasant history, but were not sensitive to the fact that these venues would cause the greatest amount of drama, stress and humiliation for Dab and would likely lead to his departure from Wikipedia. Rd232's chillingly unhelpful response and attitude on the matter summarizes it aptly.

I think Rd232 has persistently demonstrated that he is unable to let go of the issue (that is, he cannot stop beating the bloodied and wrangled carcass). This needs to be acknowledged so that community time and resources are better spent on actually improving/maintaining Wikipedia rather than wasting them here. Moreover, keeping this RfC open is more detrimental to Wikipedia than it is beneficial. I hope that everyone can agree that this RfC/U really should be closed with this, and that Rd232 (and anyone else who agrees with his approach) be asked to move on rather than escalate disputes in this manner in the future.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC) With super-strong endorsement of the hat-note.
3. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. DefendEachOther? particularly when dealing with sockmasters. Moreschi (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
6. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Abecedare

This RFC was a needless escalation of a long-settled, dormant and, ultimately, minor kerfuffle.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. We all can use our time more productively. Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. -SpacemanSpiff 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. -John Carter (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
5. succinctly stated. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
6. I'd put it "RfC is unnecessary, because the underlying issue (the single semiprotection) was minor and has been resolved." Nathan ^T 16:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC) this also.
8. Dab is one of the smartest editors on Wikipedia. When content is the issue, he is almost always right; the off-chance that he's not, he's quick to reconsider. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC) It really is time for this to be dropped. I agree with the comments made by the other users above endorsing this summary.
10. Indeed. Pigman☿/talk 18:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Drop the stick, guys. Moreschi (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
12. I'll buy that --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
13. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Exactly. Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
16. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
18. Amen! SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Antandrus (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Hans Adler 09:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
21. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by RegentsPark

Semi-protection may not have been the best of ideas but, based on dab's explanation above, it seems to have been done in good faith and to avoid blocking the IP editor. On reviewing the case, I also feel that dab tried to address the issue with doug (here for example) substantively and, for me, that is more than enough evidence that the tools have not been used in bad faith. Since Dbachmann did not contest the unprotection, an RfC is not necessary.

Users who endorse this view:

1. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Don't agree that warning is more appropriate; could've tweaked the wording a bit more, but in essence otherwise, yeah. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. -SpacemanSpiff 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Indeed, particularly as now, in retrospect, CU sheds a new light on the situation. Dieter was open and reasonable about his actions, did not wheel war, did not go on some rampage of incivility, and has generally been very sensible about the whole thing (people seem to have mistaken a touch of gruffness for resentment). But even had CU not, predictably, showed the IP to be a sockbaby, the whole thing was massive storm in a teapot. Philosophical differences between admins happen, and so long as they result in reasoned discussion and not wheel wars, user conducts RFCs are not needed. Moreschi (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Agree SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
9. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by SpacemanSpiff

The world of countering POV in Indian caste, religion and language articles is a thankless job and dab does a fairly good job on that front. For those who edit in that space it isn't exactly difficult to identify an IP as a block/ban evader. In this particular case, the IP passed the duck test for Kalarimaster/Thirusivaperur and the entire set of other socks. With the number of such socks and SPAs, it's often difficult to point out who exactly it is, but you know it's one of the many you've encountered and countered. Dab explained this on his talk page by calling the IP a logged out user. If we are to assume good faith for an IP, why is it hard to do the same with a productive editor who has a pretty darn good contribution history? If we're going to say that only edits linked to Britney taking off her panties and the like are vandalism, it is quite a sad day for Wikipedia.

Update (after endorsement 7): To clarify, I have neither edited the article nor asked for a CU, but I went through the contributions today, and compared with some similar disruption by the other user/socks. -SpacemanSpiff 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:

1. -SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Stronger than I would have put it, but I agree with the essence. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. - Maybe a bit strongly phrased, but the India conflicts tend to be stronger and more vitriolic fights than most here, so it might be warranted. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC) this as well.
5. Expresses the issue more aptly than I could've, definitely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Strongly endorse the update too. Was able to tell it was a disruptive sock by relying purely on contributions made a couple of days ago - didn't ask CU, nor was I ever involved in the article. 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
6. I don't know the issues here, but I agree on general principles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Quack. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Kudos to Spaceman for getting the puppetmaster right. Moreschi (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
10. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
12. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Mathsci (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Given the information now available about this having been a banned sock, I certainly agree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
15. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
16. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Howcheng

Regardless of Dbachmann's history with this IP or if there is a suspected sock-master, one of the cardinal rules of adminship is that you do not use your tools on articles you edit. This should be uncontroversial. Dbachmann broke this rule. Whether or not the IP is correct and all this ANI discussion was warranted is irrelevant. At the very least, Dbachmann should acknowledge that he acted improperly and endeavour to not repeat this course of action in the future.

1. howcheng {chat} 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by YellowMonkey

The IP is definitely Kalarimaster (CU) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Proposal - As confirmed by Checkuser, Dab's instincts were right. The IP was a blocked sockpuppeteer: Kalarimaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Dab was correct in assessing the sockdrawer was editing logged out in defiance of a block. As he used the tools in good faith to protect the 'pedia, I suggest we drop this whole thing and close this RfC. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support closing the RfC per YellowMonkey's CheckUser findings. Q.E.D. Pigman☿/talk 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support closure, we should treat this as resolved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by SteveMcCluskey

Anyone who has followed Bachmann's long record of maintaining both a level head and serious academic standards in politically charged articles can only be grateful for his work for Wikipedia. That on rare occasions he lets disruptive editors get under his skin is understandable and forgivable; I could never be as patient as he is.

Users who endorse this view:

1. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. My sentiments exactly. Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Ditto. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Agreed on all points. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Yep. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
6. -SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
7. How many Wikipedia users could be as patient as him? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Support, with apologies to Dbachmann for the absurd waste of time and energy caused by the misuse of the RFC process in this page. I do not know if there is any evidence regarding "get under his skin", and I do not support that statement in regard to this case. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Use of sysop tools bore up under scrutiny. The community, in giving feedback to all parties, strongly feels that Dbachmann's contributions are highly valuable and hopes that he will continue as time permits. At the request of participants, this RfC/U has been closed early accordingly. Rd232 apologised to Dbachmann here.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.