Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. LFaraone 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. T. Canens (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. AGK [•] 12:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators[edit]

2) Administrators are trusted members of the community who, after being vetted by the community, have been granted access to a certain set of tools, including the ability to effect blocks and unblocks.

Within the boundaries set by policy, administrators are allowed to exercise their discretion in using said tools for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopaedia and protecting its integrity; however, abuse of tools or their repeated misuse may lead to sanctions, up to and including a desysop.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. LFaraone 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. T. Canens (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. AGK [•] 12:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Decorum[edit]

3) Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others. Administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. As we have said before, administrators, like other editors, may sometimes make mistakes or take actions that it turns out consensus does not support. That goes with the territory. It is when problematic actions are unusually frequent or unusually serious that a more significant problem arises. (The wording has some overlap with 2, but we'll live.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. LFaraone 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. T. Canens (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. AGK [•] 12:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Accountability[edit]

4) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify their actions where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. LFaraone 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. T. Canens (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. AGK [•] 12:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Blocks[edit]

5) Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct.

While warnings are not a necessary prerequisite for blocking, before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. In the last sentence, a qualifier such as "except in severe or obvious cases" could usefully be added. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. LFaraone 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. T. Canens (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Logically. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. AGK [•] 12:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

DangerousPanda's lapses in judgement[edit]

1) DangerousPanda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s use of his administrative tools has occasionally shown a lack of the temperament and good judgement required of administrators. For instance, on 29th October 2014, he blocked Rm w a vu (talk · contribs) for 36 hours for edit warring: the user was blocked 39 minutes after receiving a warning, even though they had made no further reverts (further details here). And on 10th October 2014, his hasty AE Block of Lecen (talk · contribs) was criticised by other admins and such criticism was met with incivility.

Other occasions where DangerousPanda has hastily blocked editors without fully considering other options beforehand, and often with very limited prior notice, include [1][2][3][4].

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. LFaraone 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Panda is a prolific administrator, and I could accept certain lapses in judgement, were it not for the following finding. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Although I agree with what WTT said above, I don't agree that this quantity of diffs can be considered "certain lapses in judgment". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGK [•] 12:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

There have been some problematic blocks. Some are more problematic than others. I'm not necessarily in agreement with the selection of the two that are featured in the finding, which is why I'm not casting a support vote, though I won't oppose. I understand, to a degree, DangerousPanda's and others' observation that if an administrator is active in blocking, especially in non-routine blocking (i.e., not just obvious AIVs and UAAs), some blocks will be disputed and some will turn out to be against consensus. It is the combination of the blocks with the issue discussed in the next finding that nudges this case over the line of routine disagreement with administrator actions and into a more serious category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousPanda's response to criticism[edit]

2) DangerousPanda's response to good-faith criticism has often been uncivil and hostile [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13].

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. While I think it is understandable that admins, as humans like the rest of us, can occasionally respond negatively to criticism, DangerousPanda's responses consistently and needlessly personalized disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. LFaraone 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Unfortunately, the way Panda has dealt with criticism in the past is sub-optimal. We have high standards for administrators for good reason, poor choice in language will drive off new and current editors. Having looked over his general behaviour and how he takes criticism, I've found to be sub-optimal. Which is a shame, because I've always found him to be a personable chap and reasonable when I talk to him. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. AGK [•] 12:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Everyone loses his or her temper sometimes, and also, many people sometimes uses strong language for effect, such as for emphasis. Isolated instances of impoliteness, even from administrators, do not call for sanctions (a real-world analog of this principle that I recently cited in the Gender gap case is In re Snyder). But the cumulative evidence indicates that DangerousPanda is unduly prone to losing his temper at contributors, that he's done it over a long period of time, and perhaps most concerning, that he's continued to do it after saying he'd stop. I've carefully considered his assurance on the talkpage that now he gets it and now he'll stop, and that is commendable, but this has gone on long enough that I still have to support the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

DangerousPanda's evasion of accountability[edit]

3) DangerousPanda has demonstrated a pattern of stopping editing when his actions are called into question. He edited very little between August 2013 and January 2014 after a previous declined Arbcom case request and also stopped editing between August 2012 and September 2012 after Jimbo Wales criticised his language. DangerousPanda stopped editing for a large part of the duration of this case.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. While I can assume good faith that DP's lack of editing is due to factors out of their control and it's coincidental with this case, we have already been accommodating and I don't think the case should be held longer at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. The use of the alternate account, as pointed out on the talk page, may necessitate tweaking the finding, but the pattern is still there. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. LFaraone 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. I accept that DangerousPanda moved to a different account, but given the soft link between the two - it still appears that he was avoiding scrutiny. At a very basic level, he wasn't dealing with the problems, but instead hiding away from them. This appears what's happened here, I accept that real life has gotten in the way of his editing, but perhaps it's getting more in the way than it would had an Arbcom case not been progress. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Broadly accurate. AGK [•] 12:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The finding should be rewritten to take the alternate account into account. In addition, DangerousPanda has previously explained his rationales for the individual blocks raised in the case. It would still be very desirable for him to respond, however, to the overall sense that while any individual block might (or might not) have been defensible, his style of interacting with editors who criticize his actions is problematic, and that this has been an issue both before and after his administrative wikibreak. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This still ought to be revised, both per the observation about the alternate account, and because the last sentence is now outdated. Without such an updating, I cannot support the finding, although the underlying point has merit and so I will not oppose it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the final sentence. Carcharoth (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

DangerousPanda admonished[edit]

1) For his violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators, DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished.

Support:

1. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't see why this needs to be mutually exclusive with other remedies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per GW. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Insufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Too much for too long I'm afraid. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. In reply to the support: what would this achieve, in light of the next remedy? Nothing. AGK [•] 12:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I would support this, but it would be unnecessary piling on in light of the vote to desysop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

DangerousPanda desysopped[edit]

1.1) For his violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators, DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. I will revisit this if DangerousPanda responds, but there is no need to hold the case up indefinitely. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Having reviewed the responses, my vote here stands. Carcharoth (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. LFaraone 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Not particularly encouraged by response, on fence but ultimately support this. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. T. Canens (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. DP has failed to address legitimate community concerns and turned this case into a long-running farce. He therefore can't remain as an administrator. Best to desysop now and let him finally be unencumbered by the obligations he has persistently downplayed. AGK [•] 12:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. After reading DangerousPanda's responses on the talkpage, I think it is possible that DangerousPanda understands what would need to change if he were to remain an administrator. But my colleagues' view that there have already been enough chances given here is an understandable one. ¶ How this situation would have played out if the RfC had not been deleted will forever remain in the realm of the unknown (and I won't offer my views on the deletion given that, with the recent abolition of RfC/U, fine-tuning the certification process is a moot issue). However, my sense is that unfortunately, all roads were probably leading us here. ¶ To anticipate a question that arose in a recent request for clarification of another case, the reference in the last sentence to DangerousPanda's right to file a new RfA would also include any new community-based process that might hypothetically be created in the future to supplement or replace the current RfA process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

General[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposals which pass

Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Findings: 1, 2, 3

Remedies: 1.1

Enforcement: Standard

Proposals which do not pass

Principles: All passing

Findings: All passing

Remedies: 1 (no majority either way)

Enforcement: N/A

Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. I'm done here,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. My votes mean we have 7 supports on all except for remedy 1. I'm happy to close—I imagine the lack of votes on remedy 1 was intentional. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Our voting appears complete. AGK [•] 12:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Carcharoth (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. LFaraone 23:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

We don't have a complete decision just yet (e.g. no remedies are yet passing), and in any event, I would like to wait a bit longer for any comments DangerousPanda may have. Unlike some of our other recent cases, the decision in this one has not been unduly delayed, and there is no harm in taking a little while longer to finish considering it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Withdraw my oppose to closing now that the decision and outcome are clear. I still believe that having allowed the case to remain open for another few days was appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I will add my support on Monday evening to closing the case. I don't see any reason to hold things up longer than that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]