Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Article probation
Can this please be extended to, at the very least, Race of ancient Egyptians? Both these articles would be better than one, in my opinion. Picaroon (t) 22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rollback
Rollback is now to be made available to non-admins, is already available to non-admins through Twinkle, and can also be accessed via the inbuilt Undo function. I don't think use of rollback is such a big deal these days. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: rollback and undo are both violations of WP:REVERT, part of which I'll paste below. To sum-up, reverts are appropriate for vandalism or removing your own edits, which is not how dbachmann has been using it. It's a form of edit-warring that has long gone unchecked here. It NEVER leads to productive editing. Before the "undo" feature came about, revert was almost exclusively abused by administrators as no one else could do this, except with add-ons like popups or Twinkie. Since this issue has been raised in a documented manner, a ruling on this behavior is appropriate. I'm not saying dbachmann should be banned or blocked for this; he was probably just following the lead of other more experienced users, but a ruling would make sense here that could apply to future cases.

Justforasecond (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do

 * Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
 * Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
 * If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
 * If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Do not

 * Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
 * Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Assume good faith.
 * Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
 * There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Neutral point of view/FAQ
 * Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

To Uninvited
You might as well deal with the issues concerning Bakasuprman and Deeceevoice now. If you don't I will simply request brand new cases the minute this one closes, copy-pasting the evidence submitted here and doubling the Arbcom's case load :) Both these users commented very vociferously at the RFC and have long histories with Dbachmann. They were a major part of the build-up to this case. Given that, it's not unreasonable to make them parties to the case and examine their conduct as well. Thinking practically the problems concerning these users should be dealt with now, because if they are not I will not let the matter die. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Moreschi that another case should not be required, but it will be filed if necessary. I had considered filing a case regarding the edit-warring and incivility on race-related articles, but held off; had I filed it, it would not have been about any specific user, but instead about the generally unacceptable situation. Is the only reason you don't want to consider these directly involved users now (as opposed to in a few weeks, when another case has been accepted, as it surely will) the fact that Futurebird filed a case first, and made it exclusively about Dbachmann? Dbachmann's behavior is clearly not the extent of the dispute; why not address the whole issue here? Kirill voted to accept saying "Accept to examine the behavior of all parties", after all.Picaroon (t) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Moreschi and Picaroon. "Kirill voted to accept saying 'Accept to examine the behavior of all parties', after all". Exactly. I think many people devoted time and effort to giving evidence in this case on the understanding this was its scope. --Folantin (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I agree with Picaroon and Moreschi. And our policy and case pages make it clear that we look at all involved parties. They were aware of the case. I see no reason to put off the inevitable. FloNight (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Including Bakasuprman was a mistake. He is just a distraction in this case. So what if he splatter-bombed the RfC? Just file that away as more evidence, for the time when his actions are the focus of an ArbCom case. Including him just to let him off (as is bound to happen, for all too obvious legalistic reasons) will only strengthen the impression that he can get away with anything he likes by way of disruptive behavior. rudra (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding proposed remedies
Out of curiosity, what will happen if both proposed remedies for Bakasuprman (1. Banned for 1 year; 2. Restricted) are passed? Would the revert restriction be applied after Baka is unbanned? Nishkid64 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The closing clerk would round up the arbitrators and get them to work out which they prefer (if the support comments didn't make the general preference clear). If both pass, the ban would be applied as it is worded; the restriction would be moot, as it is assumed to run contemporaneously with the ban unless otherwise stated. Picaroon (t) 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now the two proposals are alternatives. It is possible for remedies to be combined or run consecutively, but I don't see a need to do that here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather late in the day
I've chucked some new evidence in: Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision
Back in July, when Newyorkbrad blocked Dangerous-Boy for "harassment and trolling in violation of [an] Arbitration Committee decision", Bakasuprman leapt to Dangerous-Boy's defense, insisting that Newyorkbrad was not an "uninvolved admin" and that therefore his block of Dangerous-Boy was invalid.

It took the appearance of 3 members of this Committee on WP:AN/I to make unambiguously clear that Newyorkbrad's block of Dangerous-Boy was, in fact, exactly the type of sanction intended by the ArbComm decision.

Have no doubt—the edit-warriors whom Dbachmann has protected Wikipedia from will construe a carelessly formulated remedy to mean that he cannot touch them, and they will be left to admins who will in all likelihood be less familiar with their history and less likely to show the necessary firmness.

The members of the Committee must consider the big picture, What best serves the purpose of producing an encyclopedia: restricting Dbachmann, or restricting those who would turn Wikipedia into an ideological battleground?

I fear what will happen if this Committee's Final Decision gives encouragement to the latter, however inadvertently.

JFD (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When you provide the dilemma, it is because of Dbachmann's views on Hindus, not because of other editors, that these articles have degenerated into a battleground. Dbachmann has had his account longer than every other user termed as a "nationalist troll/BJP member/etc". Allowing users with a history of admin abuse to further continue abuse sends the wrong message to contributors. It almost sounds like admin abusers are getting special treatment, for what reason, I don't know why.


 * An indef block for somewhat insane comments that were neither personal attacks nor really uncivil is extremely harsh. Certainly ranting about Rome is nowhere near the level of "hopeless Hindus/fascists/shithole". Baka man  23:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The block, as I explained very carefully at the time, was never really anticipated as being permanent. I patiently explained that it would be lifted as soon as Dangerous-Boy agreed to stop making the completely unnecessary comments that he was making, which were perpetuating the extremely unhealthy situation at issue in Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. He did agree to stop one day later and another administrator immediately lifted the block with my approval. In any event, I don't see that incident from 6 months ago as particular relevant one way or the other to the appropriate sanctions in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As JFD's diff indicates, I agreed with you that he needed to stop (though I disagree with the block), and encouraged him to quit with the rants as well. JFD's statement above is suggesting allegations of a "Hindutva cabal", one that was summarily rejected in Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2. I agree with you in terming it irrelevant to sanctions, but it is relevant to the case, since Dbachmann believes in the cabal as well, as does Moreschi/Akhilleus/Fowler. Baka man  23:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Bakasuprman, unsurprisingly, has the facts exactly wrong.

Bakasuprman even contradicts himself and his longstanding claim that some articles are inherently battlegrounds, for reasons which have nothing to do with Dbachmann: "There are two wikipedias. One for soft articles with little controversy, and the wikipedia of controversy."

Dbachmann is never mentioned in AMbroodEY's assessment of these editors as "the most quarrelsome, chauvinist editors with an axe to grind in the Wiki-world".

The dilemma is because of the editors themselves, not because of Dbachmann.

Dangerous-Boy was not blocked because of "Dbachmann's views on Hindus". One of the members of this Committee even told Dangerous-Boy, in no uncertain terms, "Stop battling. Stop game playing. Not only do we expect you to comply with the letter of the arbitration ruling, we expect you to comply with the spirit....Contrition is what's required of you now."

As for Bakasuprman himself, he was blocked 6 times even before the unpleasantness of last spring, not once by Dbachmann.

As for myself, Bakasuprman insinuates that I'm doing this for stars.

Who does he think I am, ?

I mean every single word I write, and if Bakasuprman has evidence to the contrary, he can either put up or shut up.

JFD (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
At least one of the arbitrators who indicated support for a proposal before the end of 2007, User:Fred Bauder, is apparently no longer an arbitrator. Given that there has been a counterproposal on some of the decisions created since his term ended, would he still be eligible to vote on the counterproposal, or would he be ineligible to vote on the counterproposal, and how if at all would that change the number of supporters required for proposals to be approved? John Carter (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fred is still an arbiter for the purposes of this case; he is eligible to act on all proposals. Paul August &#9742; 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The practice for several years has been that if a case is accepted and opened before the end of the year, the outgoing arbitrators remain eligible to participate in deciding the case. Among other advantages, this eases the transition between the old and new committee memberships. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, both of you. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for proposed FoF
Proposed FoF says Dbachmann "reverted content edits without offering any explanation". the linked evidence doesn't exactly back this up - here are the November edits and the corresponding discussions. Doldrums (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This analysis could be extended father back. I know that in some of these cases Dbachmann was reverting sockpuppets of banned users, in which case no discussion should be required; in other cases, Dbachmann was actively discussing the reverts. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For instance, most of the October diffs relate to the removal of maps made by User:Talessman, discussed here, here, and here. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The evidence doesn't seem to have been weighed properly here. For instance, these diffs that were presented in Nearly Headless Nick's list show Dbachmann reverting an anti-Semitic troll (User:Alex_mond) who launched several personal attacks on him and was subsequently banned (see ANI report here ):

            
 * --Folantin (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Postscript User:Alex_mond also made many edits (generally on Armenian topics) using IP addresses and I'm pretty sure some of Dbachmann's rollbacks cover those too. --Folantin (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:Alex mond is the sockpuppet of a banned user that I was talking about. I'm not sure of the timeline here, but at some point it became clear that Alex mond was the banned user Ararat arev. It looks to me like all of the reversions listed above come after it was evident that we were dealing with a problematic edit-warrior rather than a bona fide editor--e.g., after this post.

Some of the semi-protections that Dbachmann made to Armenia and related articles are relevant here, because Alex mond/Ararat arev was using a range of IP addresses to afflict these articles; Dbachmann sprotected to stop the IP sockpuppets. To me, it seems perfectly legitimate to use admin tools to protect against sockpuppet attacks, even if you've already edited the affected article; banned users are not legitimate editors, and one can therefore not have a content dispute with them. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Protection while in content dispute" FoF is flawed
The "Protection while in content dispute" section cited as evidence in the FoF has me puzzled. Is it the case that ArbCom must not evaluate the evidence presented, as that would require judging actual content (a prerequisite for any putative dispute)? As far as I can tell, a fair reading of the histories would show that Dbachmann was not trying to secure an advantage for himself. In each of the six pieces of evidence presented, he reacted to hostile anonymous edits, as stated. In more than one case, the "dispute" was with accounts that are now banned indefinitely. And where the disputants were not suspect, they were able to edit the page anyway. Viz,


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_people&diff=prev&oldid=141340123
 * Judging by the ongoing disucussion on the talk page at the time, the content dispute was with user:Šarukinu and user:EliasAlucard. The protection was in reaction to this, an anon edit as claimed, and as far as the content dispute was concerned, EliasAlucard was able to edit 15 minutes later.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenia_%28name%29&diff=137924730&oldid=137924624
 * The protection was in reaction to anon edits, as stated. The "content dispute" was with user:Alex mond, exposed as a sock of a banned account.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaldean&diff=141012032&oldid=141011963


 * The protection was in reaction to anon edits, as stated. user:Chaldean, who was on the opposite side of the dispute, was able to edit 7 hours later.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_hypothesis&diff=136138778&oldid=136138663
 * The protection was in reaction to anon edits, as stated. On the opposite side of the dispute was user:Alex mond (a sock, see above), who nevertheless accounted for the next 14 edits to the page.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_superstrate_in_Mitanni&diff=135808785&oldid=135808691
 * The protection was in reaction to anon edits, as stated. There were no other disputants.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavic_peoples&diff=134631308&oldid=134631219
 * The protection was in reaction to an announced anon troll, as stated. The dispute was with user:Nasz, who is now banned indefinitely.

So, exactly what does this Finding of Fact mean? That an editor cannot exercise any administrative functions whatsoever, regardless of circumstances, on any page he is actively editing, simply because a content dispute could be inferred? That sounds like a policy statement, and should be included in among the Principles stated for this case. rudra (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it becomes a finding of fact that most of these rollbacks and protections were made against socks and obvious vandals, the Committee should explore why this information was missing from Evidence. Ovadyah (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I always thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution to make their case. Listing loads of alleged evidence of misuse of rollback and protection with no regard to the context of the disputes is really not on. For instance, it's pretty obvious those Armenian protections were a response to banned User:Ararat_arev (a.k.a User:Alex mond) who is notorious for using multiple IPs to attack pages in quick succession. As Rudrasharman shows, the other accusations against Dab are pretty hollow too. --Folantin (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked to see that Dbachmann's actions against the most disruptive user that I have ever seen on Wikipedia, banned User:Ararat arev and his sockpuppets were questioned in this matter.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that rollbacks and protections against socks and obvious vandals have been deemed illegitimate (if not also prima facie misuse of admin tools), both here in this case and going forward. That is, it suffices for an anon troll to start reverting and bang, you now have a bona fide content dispute, no further analysis necessary, and there's nothing an editor with admin powers can do about it (himself, that is, because it would be a "furthering of his own position", or so it could be if not indeed should be construed, if he were to protect the page from these anon attacks.)
 * 1) Proposed Principle #5 states: Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.  By contrast, Proposed FoF #4 does not even attempt to establish that Dbachmann tried to "further his own position".  Simply that he protected the pages, apparently regardless of circumstances, is the stated finding ("Dbachmann has misused his administrative tools by protecting pages on which he was involved in content disputes", period).
 * 2) In fact, FoF #4 has two variants.  The original form of the second variant omitted the protection finding, stating only the rollback finding.  When it was pointed out that the more serious issue had been omitted, the second version was amended to include it, whereupon the comment was struck out and a supporting vote was recorded.  In other words, the arbitrators had two opportunities to state the material basis of the finding.  Either of those times, they could have identified a purpose, as per Principle 5; they did not.  Either of those times, they could have clarified how the actual circumstances (anon trolling/reverting, disruptive editors manufacturing content "disputes", etc) were relevant; they did not.
 * 3) Thus:
 * 4) If Principle 5 is being applied for the finding, then my analysis of the evidence is wrong for reasons that have escaped me. If some other principle is being applied, then it has not been stated.
 * 5) The finding, as stated, carries the implication that the actual circumstances are not relevant to its material basis - that the mere act of protecting the pages, never mind against anon troll attacks, was ipso facto a misuse of administrative tools even though the legitimate disputants were not inconvenienced in any way.

The FoF had actually passed, until the activation of a 12th arbitrator put it back on the bubble. As an "exit poll" of ArbCom's thinking on the matter, there seems to be a clear inclination not to look into the circumstances with much depth. There's more than one way to rationalize this.


 * 1) ArbCom has decided that two separate issues (rollback, protection) must be combined into a single FoF, so that to vote for one issue must also be to vote the same way for the other.
 * 2) ArbCom has indeed determined that Dbachmann used protection to secure an advantage for himself, but they choose neither to state what that advantage was nor to explain their analysis.
 * 3) ArbCom may not want to determine whether in fact there were any (legitimate) content disputes.  If an editor/admin in good standing presents what appears to be evidence, they can accept it as is, on WP:AGF.  So, it doesn't really matter whether there were any content disputes: the implied assertion, simply from putative "evidence" being advanced at all, is enough.
 * 4) ArbCom has decided that, going forward, there needs to be a blanket prohibition on the use of admin tools by involved editors, and since this is the first such case to come down the pike, it's just Dbachmann's sheer bad luck that he has to take the rap for the admin community as a whole.

I can't say that I'm happy with any of this, but my opinion doesn't count. rudra (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverting to one's preferred version before protecting is prima facie using the protection tool to advance one's own position in a content dispute; this has always been the case. --bainer (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that clarification is needed, in the case of obvious socks or vandalism, as to whether:


 * 1) edit summaries or a talk page explanation are still required for a revert
 * 2) an admin engaged in a content dispute with a sock or vandal can directly revert, or requires intervention by a second admin
 * 3) an admin engaged in a content dispute with a sock or vandal can protect or semi-protect, or requires intervention by a second admin


 * My interpretation of existing policy is "no" to #1 and "yes" to #2 and #3. If not, or we are setting new policy here, then it needs to be made clearer. Ovadyah (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see this archived ANI thread, and this analysis posted to the /Wokrshop page. rudra (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this message mean
Can anyone who knows Hindi tell what Bakasuprman's recent comments on Soman's page in Hindi - Maut ka Saudagar and Pseudosecularist cruft mean. Giveantake (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that it matters, but maut kā saudāgar ("merchant of death") is Urdu, not Hindi, as maut (death) and saudāgar (trader, merchant) are words of Persian origin. The phrase is making the rounds in the Indian media (and blogspace) because it was recently used by Sonia Gandhi in a campaign speech as a pointed reference to Narendra Modi without actually naming him, and thus also to the BJP by association.  "Nandigram butchers" is similarly aimed at the CPI(M), because of the Nandigram dispute.  "Pseudosecular(ist)" is used regularly by the (generally "right-wing") critics of the liberal left intelligentsia (who as a rule are supporters of the Congress Party) to call their self-avowed secularism into question (as window dressing for a real agenda involving some combination of Hindu bashing, Muslim apologetics and/or Christian apologetics).  All three phrases are epithets of vilification ("cruft"), and need to be understood in the context of Indian politics, which is mostly mudslinging anyway, and a corresponding reflection of that endemic reality in various editors' POV-ish approaches to the articles Soman mentioned.  HTH.  rudra (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Soman pointed out to me that the BJP/INC/CPIM articles were in bad shape. I used all three phrases to illustrate the political-cruft used in those articles, wherein lies the problem. I agreed with Soman that we need to tackle this problem, rather than letting these articles go to the dogs/socks as certain people wish.
 * seems like an SPA or more likely a sock seeing as how this is his fourth edit. Baka man  01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Add to that, (a) his first three edits were to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and (b) he spelled "Maut ka Saudagar"" correctly (cf. this) while seemingly disavowing any knowledge of the language. Give me a T... give me an R... rudra (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"protection"
if the arbcom is going to comment on my use of admin buttons, I insist they distinguish protection from semi-protection. None of the instances presented by "Sir Nicholas" involve protection: they are, without exception, semi-protection in the face of trolling, disruptive socks, returning banned users and logged-out edit-warriors trying to dodge the 3RR (quite apart from having no relation whatsoever to the "concerns" raised by futurebird). If the arbcom means to prohibit semi-protection when involved as an editor, I expect them to clearly state as much: semi-protection prevents disruptive editors from abusive editing, but it does not provide any leverage in editing disputes between Wikipedians editing in good faith. If the arbcom indeed means to set such a precedent, I expect that this is reflected as a new regime at Semiprotection and Rough guide to semi-protection. If the arbcom has in fact been misled by "Sir Nicholas" that I have used protection to gain leverage in editing dispute, I expect that "Sir Nicholas" be held responsible for his tendentious and obvious bad faith "contributions" to this "case". If my use of semi-protection is deemed disruptive, I might as well hand in my adminship, because I could not see myself agreeing with such an interpretation. Since it is the community, not the the arbcom, that makes policy, I would like to see a community consensus to the effect that admins may not semi-protect articles to protect them from disruption when involved in editing them. dab (𒁳) 10:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Take some time to digest our Findings and Remedies, okay. Being criticized is not fun but it gives an opportunity for personal growth. I don't think speaking harshly against other users is helpful and maybe you want to revert that part of your comment. FloNight (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * did you read any of the above? In a nutshell: I did "Take some time to digest our Findings and Remedies, okay". I am prepared to be criticized, even by actual editors, not just the arbcom (as I have stated several times over). The point is that your Findings pass off semi-protection as "protection". Are you aware there is a difference? If you want to criticize me for semi-protection, do it, but don't criticize me for something I haven't in fact done, thanks. dab (𒁳) 06:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The findings mention protection in general, not specifically full protection. --bainer (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When forum-shopped "evidence" is accepted and cited, I wonder what's more germane: digestion, or the end result of digestion. rudra (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two issues here:
 * 1) whether the Committee is modifying current policies by judicial fiat and applying the changes retroactively, and
 * 2) whether the findings in the case are compromised because they rely upon faulty evidence. Ovadyah (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * and the main issue: semi-protection isn't full protection. If the arbcom thinks I am guilty of protection just because "Sir Nicholas" said so, and did not realize that the diffs provided are in fact diffs showing semi-protection, I am afraid I have my doubts about how this is being handled. If they actually are aware that we are looking at semi-protection, let them chastise me for semi-protection, not "protection". There is an important difference here: semi-protection affects logged out trolls, while protection also affects bona fide editors. dab (𒁳) 06:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have problems with this part of the decision too. As I say above on this page, "it seems perfectly legitimate to use admin tools to protect against sockpuppet attacks, even if you've already edited the affected article; banned users are not legitimate editors, and one can therefore not have a content dispute with them." Unless I'm misunderstanding the principles/Fof, ArbCom is saying that an admin may not use semi-protection on an article s/he has previously edited, even when the article is being vandalized by a sockpuppet of a banned user. That doesn't seem to be in line with current policy or with actual practice.
 * Sir Nick has brought up this list of alleged "protection in a content dispute" on ANI before, and Dbachmann's use of semi-protection was endorsed by several admins. That discussion concerned Dbachmann's semi-protection of Chaldean after this edit by User:68.41.127.63, who was later blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Chaldean used to evade the 3RR. I don't see how semi-protection gave Dbachmann an advantage in a content dispute here; instead, it prevented an editor from abusively editing IP socks to gain an advantage.
 * In addition, none of the instances of semi-protection have to do with the loci of dispute named in Fof 1 or 1.1--they're on articles about Armenia and other locations in Central Asia, not Afrocentrism or the Indian subcontinent. Isn't it contradictory for the arbitrators to reject the FoFs/remedies having to do with Bakasuprman and Deeceevoice as outside of the scope of the case, yet adopt a Fof/remedy about Dbachmann that falls outside of the scope? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * indeed. well, the arbcom cannot tackle all problem spots on Wikipedia at once, and the case did have my name on it. Incorrectly: the scope of the case was "Afrocentrism", and, as I have already argued, it was patently unfair to turn this into a case about me, where any evidence against me was on topic, while any evidence forwarded in my defense was dismissed as offtopic. I appreciate that the arbcom isn't held to any standard in particular, but this is not what I would call a fair trial. Not that it spells the end of Wikipedia, mind you, but you have just exercised a little bit of troll-enabling. dab (𒁳) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

well done closing the case, arbcom, with 9:0(!) votes endorsing a "fact" that is not, in fact, a fact. I emphasize that I do not object to the reminder (accepting that it is within the arbcom's competence to 'remind' people), but to the incorrect "finding of fact" (because it is not within the arbcom's competence to vote something into factuality that isn't factual). Now would be a good time to post a "clarification" regarding the said "facts". If my refusal to accept the "facts" found by the arbcom as facts means my account needs to be blocked from editing, let me know. dab (𒁳) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy. --dab (𒁳) 11:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In five of the six instances of semi-protection referred to on the evidence page (not the one Akhilleus discusses above), you applied the semi-protection immediately after reverting substantive content edits to the page. To take Slavic peoples as an example, semi-protection was an appropriate response to edits like this one, but the problem was that before semi-protecting you reverted a prior substantive content edit by an anon editor. The effect of the semi-protection was thus to enforce your preferred version in a content dispute. It is the use of the tools in an active and current content dispute that is the problematic thing. --bainer (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thebainer, the "substantive content edit" you refer to was performed on 30 May 2007 by User:24.13.244.169. That was User:Nasz, editing as an IP, apparently to avoid the 3RR. On 1 June Nasz was community-banned and 24.13.244.169 was blocked for 6 months. It's hard to see a legitimate content dispute here (especially since 24.13.244.169's edit is nearly unintelligible).
 * But let's say that Nasz hadn't been community-banned--then, the semi-protection wouldn't have prevented him from logging in and editing the article (and then getting blocked for 3RR, I suppose).
 * Since in this case you say that Dbachmann's semi-protection was an appropriate response to this edit, but was problematic because he was in a content dispute at the time, I suppose the lesson here is that we shouldn't use admin tools on articles that we actively edit--even if our edits consist of restoring damage caused by logged-out edit warriors, sockpuppets of banned users, or disruptive editors who are about to be community-banned. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The merits of the content added in the edit are irrelevant, if you're reverting substantive content (as opposed to, say, page blanking or inserting patent nonsense) then you're in a content dispute. That Nasz was community banned on 1 June is also irrelevant, since Dbachmann was reverting before then. --bainer (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)