User talk:Dbachmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Dbachmann/Archive 43

Information.svg The redirect Greco-Roman ethnographers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 25 § Greco-Roman ethnographers until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 13:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sumerian rulers has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Sumerian rulers has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

moon user box[edit]


An [User:Dbachmann/moon1], could you change the .png file extension to .svg? They're smaller, and we don't need the .png any more. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I’m a bit strapped for time right now but could please reverse your unblock of Andew? Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests, “Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter.” And I said I would be opposed to any unblock without a topic ban on the talk page. There was an unanswered question from Andew on the talk, I believed your unblock jumped the gun a bit on that discussion. If you do not reverse your block I will take this up in another venue. Thank you, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 12:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am myself strapped for time. Which is a bad excuse when taking actions like this, I hope I can invest some time in this tonight. But when in doubt, if you believe a user absolutely needs to be banned asap to prevent damage to the project, chances are extremely high that you will not be the only admin to think so. Please let us both take a step back from this. In my judgement, you have clearly, blatantly stepped over a line here. If you think that no, it was me who is out of line, let us please leave this to a third, or fourth, or fifth previously uninvolved party.
I have received my admin buttons back in 2004, and I freely admit I haven't used them in a good while, but that's the way I remember things should be done, if challenged, take a step back and let others make a call.
If you find a third admin (ideally one without known prejudice or involvement) and they decide to overturn my action, I absolutely promise you will hear no further complaints from me. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a third admin who had never heard of this editor before reading AN this morning? I think your unblock is so utterly unacceptable that I briefly entertained thoughts that your account was compromised due to the mentions of twitter canvassing on AN. This might have been acceptable back in 2004, but undiscussed unblocks (without even a formal unblock request!) are not the way things are done anymore, unless urgent or so clearly wrong that a misclick is the most likely explanation (think along the lines of blocking the AIV reporter for vandalism, not the vandal; we're talking that obvious), there needs to be discussion first before unilaterally undoing an admin action. The fact the block had stood for three days and no one else had undone it should have been enough to tell you it wasn't in that category.
As to how to resolve it? Reading that discussion I think a R&I topic ban is almost inevitable for Andew, done under WP:CTOP. It wouldn't have surprised me had that discussion gone that way eventually without this hasty unblock. Courcelles (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review - AndewNguyen. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talkcontribs) 14:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I urge you to respond to the ANI thread at the earliest possible opportunity. The longer you leave this, the higher the risk that you will lose your admin tools via a suspended arbitration case. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte for recent examples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus might emerge that the block should be re-instated without Dbachmann having a chance to respond. But those suspended cases you link developed over days and weeks not hours. Dbachmann having said nothing about an ANI thread that is less than 2 hours old is not (on its own) a crisis that jeopardizes their status as an admin. I agree that Dbachmann should respond to the concerns raised at that thread under policy, but let's not over state the urgency at play here. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this is not that urgent at the moment. My point was rather that the ANI thread can't be ignored completely, which is sometimes an option elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welp, the situation is now urgent. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom case request notification[edit]

I'm sure there's a template or something for this but I'm not aware of what I should use and what's important is notifiying you of this discussion. I initiated a case request at ArbCom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Dbachmann. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]