Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Salvio giuliano (Talk) & Worm That Turned (Talk)

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties[edit]

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposals by User:Kurtis[edit]

Most of these are lifted straight from the Kafziel ArbCom case from earlier this year; however, I've made some additional revisions to reflect the specifics of this case.

Proposed principles[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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, treating others respectfully makes it easier to work together for a common goal. Didn't we learn this in Kindergarten?- Mr X 21:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators[edit]

2) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. They are expected to follow Wikipedia policy and to perform their duties with care and judgment. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, 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. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticism of their actions or conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur , but too long. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I concur, except that problematic behavior should not have to rise to the level of egregiousness before being dealt with.- Mr X 21:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator accountability[edit]

3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I concur. The keyword here is respond appropriately.- Mr X 21:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence is missing something. Criticism of the merits of administrative action are also bounded by reasonable good faith. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And who shall decide that? DP consistently questioned mine as a reason to avoid ever dealing with my complaints. Was that okay? I'm an American so you'll pardon the centrism but I really believe in notions of public accountability of those who enjoy power over others. It doesn't matter one bit in America, for example, why you might invoke the Freedom of Information Act to obtain transparency in government behavior. I happen to think that's a pretty good idea. It's that commitment openness here at Wikipedia that attracted me and, I'd have thought, attracted others. What we should be asking is that when administrators are faced with criticism of their administrative actions, their behavior shall always display an assumption of good faith. Period. If you can't handle that, this probably isn't the job for you.

Fundamentally, what I find myself struggling to understand is why it should be one bit harder to lose admin privileges than it is to gain them. It appears to be all but an appointment for life. And it comes with diplomatic immunity, certainly from complaints that you show poor judgment, make bad decisions and obtain poor outcomes, nor is there any way to reverse any of these poor decisions that brought us here. (Sorry, out of scope.) The best we can do is twiddle our thumbs over whether an admin has said fuck you too often and debate the magic number of times it takes. It should be one. Msnicki (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely pointing out, that the proposed principle here is missing a key point that is in the policy text itself. This is important, as it is also clear that some of the complainants of this sorry witch-hunt against DP have not followed the AGF, but are more or less acting as Wikipedia free-riders who are simply wasting time of the productive editors. Good luck trying to convince the magic number should be one to all the guys who think "If I have told you to fuck off, you deserved it." is the norm (maybe we should extract some Proposed Principles from that essay here :-). jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 22:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the general principle that editors should not entertain themselves by rattling around and annoying people who are actually doing work, for example, by asking the same question over and over or by pursuing disputes on behalf of third parties. Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree that beyond AGF and Civility there should be a proviso, in a proposed principle like this is, of ensuring that such criticism should not be clearly tendentious or disruptive, although beyond that I have no particular opinion regarding the applicability or lack of same for this proposal. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

DangerousPanda: Administrative actions[edit]

1) DangerousPanda has at times hastily blocked editors without fully considering other options beforehand, and often with very limited prior notice.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I concur.- Mr X 21:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a more detailed finding of fact regarding the first diff listed. I have covered that in my evidence section. This block was appallingly bad. Jehochman ^Talk 22:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousPanda: Response to criticism[edit]

2) DangerousPanda has oftentimes failed to respond to criticism of his actions in a civil manner.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I concur.- Mr X 21:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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 conduct unbecoming of an administrator, DangerousPanda is strongly admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Harmless but insufficient. NE Ent 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I was thinking there might be an alternative remedy in which DangerousPanda is instructed to refrain from making personal attacks and assuming bad faith towards other editors, as well as using his administrative tools when other less severe solutions may suffice, and that a failure to do so would carry the prospect of a future desysop via ArbCom motion. That way he can retain the tools and all the benefits that come from his work as a sort of last chance, in which he must either permanently moderate his tone or lose sysop access. Obviously this proposal would be divisive among members of the community, so I'm submitting it here for consideration. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand he has never been given an ArbCom admonishment. On the other hand a final warning means that next time he slips up, even in the most minor way, somebody will go running to ArbCom screaming for a desysop. We're here and a lot of effort has been invested. Rather than kicking the can down the road, I think it's time to decide one way or the other. Either what's been going on is excusable as an acceptable error rate for his high level of activity, or else it's not excusable and there's a desysop. I'm not too optimistic because DP hasn't invested much effort trying to resolve these issues. The responses appear dismissive to me. He could say things like, "Hey, I'm sorry I got a little snippy, I was under stress and will make sure I do better next time." Unfortunately, he hasn't been saying the right things in response. Words are important because actions often follow words; people have a strong desire to be consistent with what they say. Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

people have a strong desire to be consistent with what they say. Are you kidding, Jehochman?! Some people relish in obfuscation and manipulation. For example I've seen DP employ a pat response many times to any criticism: "I don't see what that has got to do with anything." (Or variation of.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people think I'm naive and they may be right. In any case, pat responses won't cut it here. Unless he says the right things, with feeling, I am afraid the ArbCom will not show much leniency. Jehochman ^Talk 03:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis' idea is interesting, but it is all but impossible to see it being anything but a "one-mistake-and-you're gone" proposal, unless the ArbCom really, really wants to write out an incredibly detailed list of what it thinks would and would not qualify for indulgence. And there is no guarantee that the AE people would see it the same way. I like the idea, in general, but I can't see it being workable short of maybe a written policy or guideline or lengthy essay regarding the implementation of it. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine what the point of admonishment would be. A final warning approach assumes that Dangerous Panda's admin conduct is willful. My observation is that he usually acts with the best interest of the project in mind, but lacks critical social skills such as empathy, diplomacy, humility, patience and restraint. No amount of admonishment will fix that.- Mr X 03:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousPanda desysopped[edit]

1.1) For conduct unbecoming of an administrator, DangerousPanda is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The only option. Mr. X has extensively researched and assembled evidence showing the recent extent of the problem, Msnicki has given a more detailed description of a particular example, and I started with evidence documenting how long this has been going on. Other editors, mostly with administrator user access level, have suggested no remedy or a lesser remedy is all that is needed. Don't listen to them. Nor should, in fact, should you listen to me; I'm not a victim here, any flak that comes my way is a result of where I choose to contribute.
Instead, first consider a reasonably intelligent, reasonably self-confident potential editor who might start to edit Wikipedia and observes the petty bullying DangerousPanda often engaged in. They will not go wading through all the WP-this and WP-that to figure out what to do: they're just going to go away saying "Those Wikipedians are a bunch of jerks." Now the usual wiki-lame "counter-argument" is "show me a list..." No. I can't show you a list of either Unicorns or Dark matter, but the former are mythical and the latter is 84.5% of the universe.
Barney the barney barney cannot speak because DangerousPanda's total mismanagement of the dispute has left them indef blocked with no talk page access, and perhaps lost to the community.
Next, consider Msnicki, who knew there was a serious problem but said in the rfcu: "I searched the WP: namespace, trying to figure out how a mere mortal here might ask for admin recall. I gave up." Consider Hobit who just found it easier to fade away, or Psychconaut: "But even I actively avoid any and all administrative discussions where DangerousPanda is present. Not only is this user particularly unpleasant to deal with, but the fact that they wield the tools puts me in constant fear that they'll be misused in response to some perceived slight."
Finally, consider Lecen, ridiculously blocked for a comment that he had already retracted. Arbitrator Carcharoth may not have sent a Western Union Telegram, but "it is very difficult, near impossible, for arbitrators or ArbCom to unilaterally take action unless someone actually approaches ...Waiting out the block is your choice, of course, but if everyone did that nothing would change." is about as close as you can get. Even with that invitation, Lecen's reply is telling: "The last thing I want is a vindictive administrator like DangerousPanda going after me if I report him. Who will protect me from him? The ArbCom? Clearly not." Overly aggressive administrators are being allowed to think the community supports them, not because editors respect them, but because editors fear them. This is not a sign of a healthy community. You can't fix Rfa, but you can send a message that you will not tolerate administrators who abuse the trust given to them by the community, not only in the classic "INVOLVED" situations but in an inability to simply act like decent human beings when interacting with others. NE Ent 19:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing this bit, struck and a tad off topic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::* In the RFCU I began There can be no doubt DP cares about Wikipedia and has spent a good amount of time of doing admin scutwork. Nonetheless, I stand by my statement "an inability to simply act like decent human beings" (emphasis added). WP:CIR should apply as much, or more, to administrators as the rest of the community. NE Ent 03:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's not play games with semantics. Saying "{Editor} acts like an {insulting noun}" is equivalent to saying "{Editor} is an {insulting noun}". Your unnecessary assertion that DP isn't a decent human being derails your whole argument, because you have no way to prove that. To make a point effectively, grab hold of the facts and stick closely to them. Start with diffs and then summarize what they show. You don't need to show he's a bad guy; you just need to show that he's making errors, refusing to discuss, refusing to admit, and refusing to correct them as he should. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where I'm from, "Act like decent human beings" is another way of saying, "treat people decently" (See Golden Rule). I actually think NE Ent's above comment is apropos. This: "Overly aggressive administrators are being allowed to think the community supports them, not because editors respect them, but because editors fear them." speaks to the nuanced aspects of civility which don't quite rise the level of blockable offenses, but are simply hostile, aggressive and disrespectful. - Mr X 05:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points. Jehochman ^Talk 05:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

See my comments under the subheader directly above this one. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not throwing my full weight behind this remedy. I hope the suggestion I posted above is given serious consideration. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody should broach the issue whether any editor is "a decent human being". Let's focus on whether DP is doing the job properly, or not, and if not will he resign or does ArbCom really need to fire him. Jehochman ^Talk 04:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 11:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A grotesque little witch hunt this has become. Oppose this measure. Doc talk 06:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but could you provide more details so that your opinion might be better understood? Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the 23 of 30 !voters who opposed DP's 2009 RfA on the basis of temperament and civility issues were also conducting a "witch-hunt", huh!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much can change in five years. More recent info it may be more convincing. Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much can change. Sadly, nothing did. Msnicki (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ Msnicki (as contended in my Evidence). But you missed the point, Jehochman -- 1 minute ago or 10 years ago, what is basis for "witch-hunt" allegation? With people casually tossing irresponsible descriptions like "mauled by an ugly lynch mob", "with malicious glee stabs you" (Carrite at DP's Talk) and "witch-hunt" (Doc9871 above), apparently there can never exist any valid criticism, as one or more of those name-calls will most certainly apply. We might as well close up shop and all dispute resolution venues. No one can say a negative thing about anything -- it means they're not AGF'ing, right!? (And for that, they oughtta be banned, they're breaking policy and we'll make an exception in that case for saying something negative.) Do you get it now?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding heat to this case isn't productive. If you have concerns about comments, go ask the people who made them. The comments you complain about aren't mine. I asked the "witch hunt" asserter for details. That's a very polite way to suggest that an idea might be shakey. Jehochman ^Talk 03:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still missing the point. Your More recent info it may be more convincing shows you misunderstood the ref to 2009 RfA. (It wasn't to introduce evidence. It was to demo how the name-call is bogus -- because if it is not bogus now, then it wouldn't be bogus then. Or ever. And it is just one name-call of a category of name-calls that anarchize argument.) If you don't get it now I'm done trying to explain to you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, you've just accused NE Ent of "hounding" DP [15]. See, that is the point I'm making -- no valid criticism is allowed, anytime, anyplace, without drawing these bogus anarchizing labels like a magnet. (And you accuse me of adding "heat"?! How hypocritical.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent has clearly been hounding DP. What else would you call a long and relentless pursuit? Has it not been long and relentless? Has NE Ent made a balanced presentation of the facts, or has it been a one sided presentation of negatives only? Check the definition of the word "hound" and you'll see that it has several different meanings. Jehochman ^Talk 04:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jechochman, if you wish to coach Dangerous Panda on his talk page, or rally sympathetic admins to defend him, I suppose that's your choice. Could you please do it without discrediting other editors. Accusing NE Ent of hounding crosses a line, especially in an Arbcom case.- Mr X 05:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear both sides of this story. It's not right that we are only hearing one side. See my comment below for detailed reasoning and rebut it point by point if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 05:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to frame this Arbcom case as a conflict between NE Ent and DangerousPanda is not helping to resolve the substantial issues, almost all of which have nothing to do with NE Ent. No one is preventing DangerousPanda from stating his "side", other than perhaps some very time-consuming inlaws.- Mr X 05:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add some facts. In 2014 NE Ent made 2840 edits, approximately, and of those 135 were in article space. That ratio is twice as low as my own, and I'm known as somebody who does a lot of talking relative to the amount of content editing. (Sort of goes with the administrator job, and also my work at In The News generates a lot of non-article edits.) NE Ent is a very frequent contributor to AN/I (sorry, can't get an edit count; the tool chokes on that page and it's long history) and NE Ent likes to get involved in controversies, especially controversies involving administrators. When evaluating a complaint, it's a good idea to look at who's complaining and put in context how much complaining they do. Secondly, I am unimpressed at the evidence presented by NE Ent. There's a 1000 word limit. NE Ent doesn't present evidence, they just link to the defective RFCU, a page that is way more than 1000 words, and expects everybody to read it. Not good. To do a proper job, NE Ent should select the best diffs and make a concise presentation. How is DP supposed to defend himself against such an amorphous mass of accusations? If somebody threw that mess at me I might also become very discouraged. These cases shouldn't be "won" by burying the "opposition" like that. So, these are some of the facts that lead to my conclusion that NE Ent has been hounding DangerousPanda. NE Ent isn't making proper use of dispute resolution; they are applying heavy pressure to get a particular result at all costs, regardless of what's fair. I hope both NE Ent and DP will reconsider what they have been doing (or not doing) here and see if there might be a better way forward. Jehochman ^Talk 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these claims may be facts but a lot of them, like your claim that NE Ent is hounding DP, are just your opinion. And none of them are relevant. Your behavior was poor. Okay, you struck the worst of your remarks but only to make a "better word choice", not to retract the substance of your attack. Then you went on to post these additional catty remarks about NE Ent, obviously offered an excuse for your behavior, and capped it off by closing the discussion. Jehochman, this just plain boorish and you should be ashamed. Never mind waiting for MrX to take you up on reverting you, I'm doing it.

This is a discussion of DangerousPanda's behavior and if it takes "burying" DP in evidence of his misbehavior to get anyone to do something about it, I don't think that was NE Ent's doing. It's merely what it takes given that the near impossibility of holding an admin accountable for anything. I've been to ANI, RFCU, talkpages, an ArbCom request and now here and it's still not over. It's just more of the same wide gulf between the standards applied to admins and those applied to the great unwashed, i.e., all rest of us. Barney could be driven completely off the site in days by a single admin in complete disregard for the rules. Yet even after dragging the matter to the ArbCom, I'm still getting appallingly stupid answers that undoing that and unblocking Barney is "out of scope". Meanwhile, DP enjoys months of due process not because he's in jeopardy of being blocked but just to decide if he should have only the same powers all the rest of us have. Rather than posting this completely gratuitous attack on NE Ent and then closing it after you've had the last word, the right answer should have been to apologize. Msnicki (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the word hounding and replaced it with pursuing. It's unfair for you to attack me over a word after I've struck it. It's also unfair for you to unhat a conversation I was having with somebody else that became a tangent. Why are you stoking controversy? If people try to calm things as both NE Ent and I did, don't stop them. Definitely don't jump in with your own salvo of personal attacks. Jehochman ^Talk 11:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support this remedy. This is probably the worst administrator I ever meet in the project, based on his comments and actions with regard to WP:COI and contributors in Eastern Europe area. However, I would rather not elaborate this point for a number of reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no evidence presented of behavior that's so egregious that it requires Dangerous Panda to be desysopped -- far from it. Certainly, I would agree that DP's handling of certain interactions was less than optimal, and for that he perhaps deserves a light tap on the knuckles, but requesting to desysop a very good and valuable admin for making a couple of mistakes or losing his cool is not the hallmark of a rational inquiry into behaviors and corrective action. BMK (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the proposed remedy. The evidence strongly suggest that DangerousPanda's long history of incivility, aggressiveness and poor judgement is harmful to the project and it's contributors. While much of his work as an admin has been admirable, far too much of it falls short of the expectations set forth in policy. A few transgressions can be overlooked, but repeating the same troubling behaviors for the past four years, while rejecting almost all criticism, suggests an inability to function in the role of admin.- Mr X 04:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Not applicable here.

Proposals by NE Ent[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

As I'm endorsing Kurtis's 1 and 3, I'm going to number to interleave theirs.

Purpose of administrator user access level[edit]

1.1) In order to facilitate the building of the encyclopedia, some editors are granted additional technical abilities by the community. These editors, designated "Administrators," have no additional authority beyond any other editor, but rather are entrusted to judiciously evaluate situations and take action based on community standards. NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1.1.1) In order to facilitate the building of the encyclopedia, some editors are granted additional technical abilities by the community. These editors, designated "Administrators," have no additional intrinsic authority beyond any other editor; rather they are trusted agents of the community's authority. NE Ent 00:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1.2) In order to facilitate the building of the encyclopedia, some editors are granted additional technical abilities by the community. These editors, designated "Administrators," do not outrank any other editor; rather they are trusted agents of the community's authority. (Jehochman)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This needs rephrasing, not because the concept is wrong, but because the word "authority" is ambiguous. In one sense of the word, administrators do have extra authority; for example, only an administrator has the authority to speedy-delete a page. I think what is meant here is that administrators are expected/required to use their authority in accordance with the community-adopted policies and expectations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In fact, "authority" appears in Wikipedia:Administrators only once: "I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone." (quote from Jimbo Wales) NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to incorporate NYB and Jehochman's suggestions. NE Ent 00:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"...and take action on behalf of the community." Administrators are entrusted to know or to find out what the community wants and implement it. If there is a deletion discussion, an administrator reads the discussion, summarizes the result and performs any needed technical action. If an editor misbehaves, an administrator can determine, based on the community's feelings that have been recorded as policy or expressed in discussions, what to do. Jehochman ^Talk 04:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try 1.2. I think what the other proposals are trying to say is that all editors are equal in terms of rank. An admin is not a boss to a non-admin. An arbitrator is not a boss to an admin. Jimmy Wales isn't the boss of anybody at Wikipedia. There is no hierarchy. Nevertheless, some editors have greater trust due to their experience and good sense. These editors can serve as admins at the community's pleasure, and are granted additional tools to carry out their work. Jehochman ^Talk 00:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with 1.1.1 and 1.2. Admins should not adopt an authoritative stance when interacting with other editors, such as by threatening sanctions, warning of boomerangs, and communicating in a tone that is condescending, dismissive, patronizing, insulting, humiliating or hostile.- Mr X 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very fine line. Often I will say things like, "I'm trying to help you. If you follow this advice (blah blah blah) it will help ensure that you don't get sanctioned." However, if somebody is clearly up to no good, there's nothing really wrong with saying, "You could be blocked already for doing X, but I think you are a well-meaning person and if you make sure not to do that again, I'm willing to look the other way this time." At some point you have to have a way to communicate a warning. A warning and a threat can be confused for one another. I'm concerned that this case not give rise to more disruption or make it hard for skilled administrators to do their work. Jehochman ^Talk 03:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice[edit]

2) Administrators are expected ~~to lead by example and~~ to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in other editor(s) behavior.

2.1) As representatives of the Wikipedia community, Administrators are required to behave respectfully and civilly in their official interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in other editor(s) behavior. (Jehochman)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's not a "notion": it is part of the Administrator's job description. It is expected administrators will have to, for example, block some editors; the manner should be "Unfortunately you've demonstrated an inability to follow community norms" rather than "Die, you vile piece of disruptive scum." NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman raises a valid point. NE Ent 03:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Good. The way to confront bad behavior is to smother it with niceness. Being nice helps retain good editors, who may have had a lapse, while it repels trolls. Jehochman ^Talk 03:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the word "lead" because it conflicts with the idea that admins don't outrank other editors. There is no pecking order. Jehochman ^Talk 00:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to put a sharper edge on this, but I agree with both versions now. Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. The second sentence highlights something that DangerousPanda evidently doesn't agree with. - Mr X 01:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assistants, not Paladins[edit]

2.5) ~~Per policy, administrators assist the community in building the encyclopedia.~~
2.5.1) Per policy, administrators assist the rest of the community in building the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I understand the point being made here, but I'd quibble with the wording. Administrators are first and foremost part of the community. They are community members who are provided with some extra tools for the purpose of, as stated, assisting with encyclopedia building (and maintenance). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The contributions of some admins (e.g. DangerousPanda) appear to indicate the perception of the role as a "Knight Protector of Wikipedia." This does not work, because Wikipedia is too big.

There are 6,826,310 articles, 121,345 active users, and approximately 1133 active administrators (active, semi-active). That comes out to about 35 articles per user and 4,000 articles per administrator. It's only gonna work if all editors, with and without administration user access levels, work as a team.

I'd also like to get beyond the notion the primary role of administrators is "minimize disruption." Reductio ad absurdum: indef all the editors, full protect all the pages, delete all of the Wikipedia: namespace --> no disruption! Collateral damage: no encyclopedia, either. The role should be to help manage disputes when lesser means (warnings, discussion) prove inadequate. NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated per NYB's comment. NE Ent 03:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about blocking. A block is like a hammer -- it's a tool. It can be used both positively or negatively. Blocking a vandal or troll or someone trying to dox a editor is a positive, community building action. Blocking a misguided editor when all other avenues haven't been exhausted is often a negative action. It depends on context and therefore requires judgement. The crux of this case is that, regardless of intent, DP has repeatedly shown both a lack of skill in using admin tools and an inability or unwillingness to take feedback on board when presented. NE Ent 02:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree with NYB's quibble.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "the rest of" as divisive. Admins are not separate. They are one and the same with the rest of the editors. Otherwise this is right. Jehochman ^Talk 00:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with 2.5.1. We don't need admins who are more interested in blocking and threatening to block, than building the encyclopedia.- Mr X 02:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jehochman regarding the divisive phrase. Weak disagreement with MrX, only because I can see a purpose in some cases in having admins who are willing to spend the sometimes incredible amount of time required to review someones history to see if they merit a block. EdJohnston and other AE editors are to my eyes some of the greatest assets that this project has, and as someone who tried that venue myself before I knew I wasn't really qualified for it I know that it can sometimes seem that such admins are more interested in block-related actions. So far as I can see, though, that is because doing the job there right takes so much time that they often have little if any time for anything else. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency[edit]

4) Administrators are encouraged to use alternate non-administrator accounts when contributing from insecure networks. These secondary accounts should be immediately and obviously recognizable as being the same user as the administrative account.
4.1) When using public computers to participate in the same venues as their primary account, administrators are encouraged to use alternate accounts. These secondary accounts should be immediately and obviously recognizable as being the same user as the administrative account.
4.2.) When setting up alternate accounts for legitimate purposes, editors, and administrators in particular, should be careful to choose usernames that minimize the potential for confusion. (Jehochman)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't recall that insecure networks were an issue here (though perhaps I have forgotten something). Is the concept that administrators should use only their main administrative account, and that any alternate accounts should be plainly linked to the main account? If so, that would raise the question whether administrators are excluded from other permissible uses of alternate accounts (of course with only one being the administrator account), but I don't think it's necessary to get into that issue in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This should be common sense, but apparently it wasn't. NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating feedback from NYB and MrX. NE Ent 03:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I've tried socking with User:Jehochman2 but everybody spots me. Change "encouraged" to "may" and I support this. Jehochman ^Talk 00:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "insecure networks" is somewhat imprecise. A legitimate reason to use a second account is when using a public computer, or one that you don't have control over. SSL/TSL does a nice job of encrypting login credentials between a client browser and a web server over otherwise insecure networks. In any case, Dangerous Panda's inexplicable back and forth between accounts is at best, confusing, and at worst, misleading, especially from the vantage of less experienced editors.- Mr X 21:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's any intent to mislead, but the names have caused actual confusion. This has given users a bad feeling. Administrators in particular should carefully choosing names for any alternate accounts to minimize the potential for confusion. (4.2) Jehochman ^Talk 05:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) The use of insecure networks, public computers, security layers (SSL/TLS) doesn't matter in this case and should be dismissed from the sentence. This issue can be dealt in another discussion. 2) When the admins participate in the same venues as their primary account, they should or better "must" use alternate accounts. These secondary accounts should be immediately and obviously recognizable as being the same user as the administrative account and not only "minimize" the potential for confusion. --Keysanger (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

DangerousPanda: Administrator accountability [edit]

Continuing numbering from Kurtis's

3) ~~When concerns were brought before ArbCom, he declined to submit substantive evidence explaining his actions, a breach of administrator accountability.~~

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Jehochman raises a valid point -- I had cribbed that from a prior case with a different set of circumstances. NE Ent 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, but I am concerned that we still haven't heard from DP. In my view, this is concerning. Jehochman ^Talk 02:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is a bit unfair. DP has stated that he's been unavailable until early this week.[16] He had relatives visiting.[17] We have no way of verifying any of this, but per AGF we ought to accept these explanations. Before anybody says DP didn't assume good faith of others, that doesn't alleviate our obligation. Jehochman ^Talk 05:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Decorum[edit]

2) All editors, especially those with the administrator user access level, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Without going overboard with the WP:COATRACK, I'd appreciate if the committee would remind folks the policy requirements (job description) of Administrators isn't some sort of Jack Sparrow like "more of guidance than actual rules." We really do mean what the page says. NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is consistent with past practice: please see All administrators reminded and all editors reminded NE Ent 03:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is too general. ArbCom doesn't make policy and we don't need them to read it for us. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these proposals, but they're out of scope.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 00:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Barney the barney barney[edit]

3) User:Barney the barney barney is unblocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While their conduct wasn't perfect, "time served" should be sufficient. NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Same as my comment below. Out of scope. Jehochman ^Talk 21:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DanielTom[edit]

4) User:DanielTom is unblocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I can ask, can't I? I understand it's a stretch -- DanielTom has been a "very very bad" editor per Wikistandards, and they were blocked on commons back in July. But it seems me an editor whose primary involvement with the Wikipedian dispute resolution system was with DangerousPanda -- who picked on ridiculous nits like hidden text in an AN posting talk page note, and the suspended case Toddst1 should get a mulligan. NE Ent 16:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC) NE Ent 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the socking, the personal attacks and other general "not here to build an encyclopedia" reasons, I'm shocked to see this here. I was one of the admin he attacked (over and over) to ensure they were involved and couldn't take action on their own. The idea of unblocking is so patently offensive, it forced me to log on to protest. Farmer Brown (Dennis) 18:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one of those "Dennis's patience is being tried so it must be true" standard evocations? You're no Golden admin Dennis, in spite of what your mirror tells you. There was no socking only a flimsy allegation of same; there were no repeated PAs on you, only a colorful allegoric farewell comment that blew your stack whereby even your best wiki-friends told you to settle down (and over which you still carry a grudge); re "not here to build an encyclopedia", the user was just a starter on WP his main contributions were at Wikiquote, and I'd say a better case of NOTHERE could be made against you -- with your mere 23.1% mainspace contributions and your focus on ensuring your entire social life is documented for all to see and your ego as Golden admin is continually fluffed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

They can request an unblock through normal channels. The evidence does not cover this editor. The remedy is out of scope. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Although I respect Salvio's conclusion that unblocking users previously blocked by DangerousPanda is outside the scope of the case, I'd be open to a proposal to the effect that his disputed blocks that are still in effect should be reviewed. I'm not saying that I would agree or disagree with the proposal, but I think it would at least arguably be within the scope of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has strayed away from the case, and is devolving into unsupported allegations about non-parties. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed by an arbitration clerk. Please do not modify or continue it.

DanielTom was blocked by Drmies then Toddst1, not by DP. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand why unblocking Barney would be "out of scope". This block has been the essence of my complaint from day one. I've said repeatedly that I don't care that DP was uncivil to me. I do care that he's uncivil but expects to block others for the same behavior. But the single most important complaint I've been making, the one I thought you accepted to arbitrate, was about DP's poor judgment and poor outcomes with Barney. Yes, DP should not be an admin and you need to fix that. But you need to undo DP's actions that brought us here as well. I cannot for a moment believe you don't have the authority to fix this or that you didn't understand what the case was about when you took it. Please. Do the right thing. No excuses. I am appalled that DP gets months of due process but even the ArbCom cannot do the right thing for Barney because it's "out of scope." Unbelievable. Where's the new line I'm supposed to get in to ask for this to be done? Msnicki (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That user can request an unblock and it will be evaluated on the merits. The focus should be on his editing, not DP's. Jehochman ^Talk 19:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of my complaint has been that DP railroaded Barney right off the site. This complaint is what's in the evidence, e.g., in my statement in the RFCU. If my complaint is sustained, why in the world should Barney have to request an unblock? We should unblock him because it was wrong in the first place. Never mind what Barney would ask – he's blocked and can't participate here anyway – this is what I'm asking and it's the reason I'm here. Did all the rest of you think the only interesting question is whether DP says fuck you too much? I came here to get a problem fixed and I still want the problem fixed. And it goes way beyond coarse language. It's not just that DP is an admin, it's that he's done some damage that I want undone. Are you claiming that community basically has no ability to ask for a review of this, that only Barney, as the wronged party, can do that? Please tell me that is not true. Msnicki (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barney isn't a party to this case. If he wants to be unblocked, he just needs to say so, and I or some other admin will consider it. Ask him to login and post {{unblock}} with a statement that he will certainly follow all Wikipedia policies (promising to do what' already required isn't costly). That should be sufficient as long as the facts you present check out. Jehochman ^Talk 19:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to unblock him from his talk page so he can do that? Msnicki (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That was the right thing to do. Msnicki (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my complaint is sustained, can that long list of 5 blocks imposed by DP be hidden from view? In the future, anyone looking at that list who doesn't know the whole story will get what I believe is an unfair impression of Barney. Msnicki (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross that bridge when we get to it. First, ask Barney to request a review of his block. Jehochman ^Talk 22:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Barney have to do anything whatsoever? The guy's owed an apology. The initial block was excessively set to run 3 days until the end of the AfD that he was winning on the merits and even that initial block was tainted by a failure to properly warn. I claim that everything that followed was even more appalling. Why has his block not simply expired? Why can this abuse not be scrubbed from his block log now? I object strenuously as I have from day one to indef anything against Barney. He should not be required to post one darn thing to get the unblock. We'll be lucky if he ever does return. This was a once productive contributor – a customer, for pete's sake – that we drove away unfairly. We should fix this or at least do what we can.

At some point, do I ever reach the right people to do the right thing just because it's the right thing? Don't you guys ever stand up for anyone else unless they're a fellow admin? What line do I get in to ask for this? Not everyone likes me, but let me promise you, Kitty Genovese would not have died outside my window. Msnicki (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Barney needs to appeal his block. You can't do it for him. When he appeals, somebody will investigate and determine if his block is necessary to prevent disruption or damage to the encyclopedia. If not, he will be unblocked. Such reviews are usually pretty forgiving. This case hasn't closed yet, so the things you assert are just assertions, not facts. DP hasn't presented his side of the story yet, so the Arbitrators aren't going to do anything too speedily. You probably want to bypass them and have Barney appeal on his talk page (now unblocked) and if you want a fast review, ping me or Floquenbeam. That's how things work here. There's no assignment of fault. It's all water under the bridge. If his block log needs to be cleaned up, we can figure out the best course of action. Jehochman ^Talk 20:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What completely made-up bureaucratic bullshit. Please show me the guideline or even an essay that trumps WP:EXPLAINBLOCK and says the community has no ability to question a block, that only the one who was blocked may do that. And even if you do, so what. We have another rule, WP:IAR which says that if there's a rule that stands in the way of doing the right thing, ignore it. It is simply ~~inconceivable~~ unacceptable that not even the ArbCom is able to act on a complaint from the community that an indef block was applied improperly and should be lifted and that, sorry, the guy we wronged has to first promise to be good. Were it not for DP's behavior, any ordinary block would have long ago expired even if he'd made no promises whatsoever. You're asking him to agree to the legitimacy of a demand that isn't legitimate at all.

But let me also focus in on my claims, since you've twice questioned whether there's any real substance behind them, to ask my own question: You've had two months to familiarize yourself with the case. Have you read it? If you wondered about my claims of what happened at the AfD or about my claim Barney was winning and that this is where it all started, did you go read that AfD? If you wondered if my claims about what happened at ANI were a fair representation of what actually happened, did you go read that? It seems doubtful because if you had read it, you would either be agreeing with me or debating the substance of my claims and telling me I'm full of it. You're not doing either. Instead, it's just lots of pablum about "if" my claims are true. My guess is that your opinion of this case is about is about as informed as if we were to ask your opinion of a movie you've never seen.

And just so we're clear: I don't know who Barney is in real life. I have no contact with him. I have no way of knowing what he thinks of any of this. Personally, I doubt he'll return even if we do the right thing. But my own moral compass says this was wrong and it should be right. Msnicki (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Msnicki, let's see how this all works out in the end. I'm sympathetic to your position, but it would be a lot easier for an administrator to unblock if they have some indication that Barney actually has an interest in returning, and really does want to return to editing. We've seen over and over that people who've been the subject of (shall we say) problematic blocks often return embittered and comparatively unproductive, and I'd hate for that to be the situation with Barney. Risker (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible in theory (I have no info at all) that Barney has already returned with a new identity and is happily editing away with no interest at all in revisiting these matters. If that's the case and he's observing this case, I wish him well. Jehochman ^Talk 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, if you have no information at all, why would you resort to speculating that an editor who is not allowed to participate in these proceedings has violated longstanding block policy? That's casting aspersions about someone without any basis. Would you please consider retracting the statement above? (If you do so, you can also remove this comment as it would serve no purpose.) Risker (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible in theory (I have no info at all) that Jehochman counts cards at Atlantic City $200 Blackjack tables, and moonlights as an astronaut. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks reviewed[edit]

5) Blocks placed by DangerousPanda, or placed in conjunction with disputes where he had significant interaction with the parties, should be reviewed by the community to ensure their continuance is in the best interests of the project. NE Ent 00:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No. This is excessively meddlesome. If anybody wants to appeal their block they can. If anybody wants to encourage another editor to appeal a block, they can. Jehochman ^Talk 00:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this requires an Arbcom remedy. Anyone can request such a review at any time.- Mr X 02:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely on point; Arbcom has made similar requests for community review of administrator actions when an administrator is sanctioned. Risker (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Jehochman[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

To anger is human[edit]

1) ~~Wikipedia is not a social networking service.~~

1.1) It is excusable for an editor to become angry when they perceive that somebody is intentionally damaging the encyclopedia. While it is best practice to remain calm and polite, every editor is human and may get upset from time to time. When an editor is upset for good cause, they should be supported and calmed, not sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From WP:NOT. I think this is needed to maintain a balanced perspective. Perhaps it could be merged into the principle about the purpose of Wikipedia. Politeness is useful to help build the encyclopedia, however, if an editor is not here to build the encyclopedia, at some point politeness ends and they get a firm shove out the door, if need be. Jehochman ^Talk 22:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what relevance this has to this case. Has anyone submitted evidence that Dangerous Panda has been using Wikipedia as a social networking service? If so, some context would be helpful.- Mr X 01:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think something is necessary to counterbalance the heavy emphasis on civil words. Civility is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. If somebody is maliciously damaging the encyclopedia, it's not problem if a concerned editor gets angry. If you spent months creating a beautiful sculpture and some person came into your studio and spray painted it, you'd probably get very angry at them. The same thing can happen here. We need to be understanding that "Wikipedia is not a social networking service." People here do real work, that they take pride in, and when somebody destroys their work, there is a natural human reaction to get angry. When that happens, we mustn't punish the victim; we should support them. I'm not expressing it well yet, but I think this case needs to recognize this dynamic and distinguish between when angry words are excusable and when they are not. Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten this. I think this principle will be useful to encourage greater kindness and civility. "You seem really upset. How can I help?" is much better than "You need to calm down or I'm going to block you!" Block aren't civil and aren't calming. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for all these carve-outs for admins only? Can someone point to a section in the guidelines that says it's okay for all of us commoners to get angry (presumably manifest as inappropriate behavior else how would anyone know and why would they care) as long as we have "good cause"? What the heck is that? If you are an admin and you are becoming angry in the course of carrying an administrative task, you are also becoming WP:INVOLVED. The correct procedure is to hand the matter to another admin and walk away. If you are unable/unwilling/incapable of doing this, you should not be an admin. Why would this even be up for debate? Is this system so corrupt to core, that honest to God, there simply is no accountability for admins, that there must always, always, always be some way for admins to weasel out of any responsibility that is not available to the rest of us great unwashed? Msnicki (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This principle seems to be addressing the issue of how to handle any editor getting angry, by trying to deal with them kindly. It isn't targeted at any specific type of editor. isaacl (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I may have misread this. But here's why I misread it: There's only ONE editor whose behavior we're reviewing and he's an admin. Further, every apologist for DP has consistently offered some kind of excuse of the form, well, he's only uncivil some of the time. Except for that, he's okay and that's why he's a great admin and we should look the other way. This "principle" that it's okay to get angry does not appear in the guidelines and (case in point) this courtesy was certainly not extended to Barney. If this could be rewritten as an expectation that admins must behave in this manner, fine. But as a general principle that I don't see very generally applied by admins toward non-admins out in the wild, I'm not supportive of this principle because it appears to be offered as a way of excusing only poor admin behavior. Separately, NE Ent has also taken me to task for my comment for appearing too anti-admin. Well, so what. When DP gets months of "due process" and the rest of us get basically none if we cross the line and when it's "out of scope" to undo wrongs done to ordinary users, the system is corrupt. That's what the word means. Msnicki (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, fwiw. It creates at least the appearance of admins, yet again, circling the wagons to protect their pal. Such apologetic language should not be necessary within a principle describing what all editors should strive to be doing in regard to civility. Ignocrates (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Principles are the basis for findings, so by specifying a principle that it is desirable to treat editors kindly when they are upset, there can be a finding that someone's behaviour was contrary to this expectation. (My personal confusion is that when someone states that X is not a social networking service, usually what is meant is that the type of dialogue on X is generally less concerned with social niceties than is the case for social networking services. Thus the rewritten principle is helpful, as it clarifies that this was not the intended guiding tenet.) isaacl (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE[edit]

2) Do not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular. Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The nutshell. Jehochman ^Talk 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this. I would add that, for new users, this place is labyrinthine bureaucracy. Not only should we not be hostile to new users, but we should help them find their way around, especially if asked.- Mr X 01:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per my above statement, this is a situation where we need to be very careful not to get angry, when somebody breaks something because they don't know better (rather than because they are acting maliciously). Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Incivility[edit]

3) When there is an incident of serious incivility, an effective response is to comfort the victim. An ineffective response is to attack the offender, because this just creates more incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The focus should be on helping the victim. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shunning[edit]

3) An effective strategy for dealing with persistent low level incivility is to ignore the offender.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think it's worth adding principles like this to provide guidance so the case participants have been tools to handle future problems. Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking to enforce civility[edit]

4) Blocks, and threats to block, are inherently uncivil and should only be used as a last resort to stop serious Incivility, such as repeated or severe personal attacks or harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Blocks have a cost and should be used sparingly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Msnicki[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Blocks must be explained[edit]

1) Per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested. There is no requirement that the person requesting the review must be the person who's been blocked. Similarly, per WP:ADMINACCT, Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur. NE Ent 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I concur.- Mr X 02:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user must be warned[edit]

2) Per WP:BEFOREBLOCK, 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:≥

Comment by parties:

Concur. NE Ent 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I concur. Even experienced editors deserve prior warnings, especially if they have a clean block log.- Mr X 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An admin who becomes involved or cannot remain civil should recuse himself[edit]

3) Per WP:Administrators#Administrator conduct, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct. Similarly, per WP:INVOLVED, Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. ... it is still the best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur. NE Ent 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I concur. There are actually two different principles here: WP:INVOLVED and emotionally involved.- Mr X 02:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin misconduct undermines the legitimacy of the project[edit]

4) It is essential to the success of the project that users believe they will be treated fairly, This is an important basis of legitimate authority that encourages people to cooperate in social contracts, whether it's a government with police or a wiki with admins, involving power to enforce sanctions. Per WP:ADMINACCT, Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. C.f., Jackson & Bradford, Police Legitimacy, A necessary condition of justifiable use of state power is the legitimacy of the police force. Legitimacy is the very foundation of police authority. A legitimate police force demonstrates to citizens why its access to and exercise of power is rightful, and why those subject to its power have a corresponding duty to obey.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur. NE Ent 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I concur. - Mr X 02:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should enjoy no special exemption from the guidelines[edit]

5) Per WP:Administrators#Administrator conduct, Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. We're all human, so occasional mistakes are compatible with adminship the same as they are compatible with being an ordinary user. But I find nothing there to indicate admins shouldn't face usual sanctions at the time of any infractions, e.g., short blocks if they engage in personal attacks, the same as ordinary users, i.e., admins have a responsibility to police their own. Sustained problem behavior and egregiously poor judgment are incompatible with being an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An essential skill for admins is the ability to moderate disputes[edit]

6) The goal in dealing with problem behavior is to end the problem behavior and help those editors who may be involved in a dispute that's boiled over and become disruptive to feel good about agreeing to play by the rules. The goal is moderate the dispute and help people become productive rather than disruptive as easily and as painlessly as possible. Some of this involves reminding editors that it's okay to hold any opinion you like but you just can't post every one of them. You need to find a way to express your thoughts within the guidelines or not at all. Part of this is helping people to disagree in constructive ways that help the project. The antithesis of that would be pouring gasoline on the situation, inflaming it until someone has been run off the reservation. We are not all good at the same things. Some people should be social workers and some should be engineers. If you aren't any good at dispute resolution, you really have no business being an admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur with concept. NE Ent 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't entirely agree. There are many admins who primarily do gnomish work and hardly every get involved with disputes (the engineers). I would consider revising the last sentence to read " If you aren't any good at dispute resolution, you really have no business being an admin who gets involved in disputes and you should stay away from ANI."- Mr X 02:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not every admin has the ability to contribute to the solution, but admins should not contribute to the problem. --Rs chen7754 02:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines clearly define incivility[edit]

7) WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL offers a long and helpful list for examples for anyone unsure how to tell.

To Nikkimaria: Is this a hypothetical or an actual concern in the case at hand? It would be helpful if you could identify which if any of the diffs offered in evidence as examples of DP's uncivil behavior are cases where you feel it might be difficult to make hard-and-fast judgments. Msnicki (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No. The section you point to has as its first sentence "It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not" - and this is borne out in the community's discussions and disagreements around that issue, including several arb cases. The list of examples is all well and good, but is not a "clear definition", nor is its implied guidance universally agreed upon and applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Barney was not warned[edit]

1) Barney was never given proper warning before he was blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

DP allowed baiting[edit]

2) In violation of WP:IUC, DP allowed Bearcat to bait Barney on Barney's talk page while Barney was blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

DP became involved[edit]

3) The pattern of repeated blocks edging Barney toward the door started after Barney called DP "Bearcat's pet admin". There's clear evidence that DP has a thin skin and that this would likely make him angry. Even if good faith DP sincerely believed he could be impartial, he should have realized that a serious good faith argument had been raised (by me) that there was appearance of involvement and that alone should have been a reason to step away. Instead, DP responded with incivility, crude language and personal attacks, proving only that this went way beyond any mere appearance of involvement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur, and I'll note there's often a difficulty in communication due to the ambiguity between "involved" in the ordinary sense -- as in "sucked into the drama" vs. the specific wiki WP:INVOLVED definition. NE Ent 01:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

DP didn't become involved. It's a longstanding principle that an editor can't make an admin involved by insulting him or her. An admin needs to be able to ignore insults of that sort, otherwise he of she shouldn't do the work of confronting uncivil or disruptive editors. DP seems to have a thin skin. He should have known his limits. Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP's indef block of Barney was unreasonable[edit]

4) That it progressed to an indef speaks only to DP's escalation and mismanagement of the situation. Barney should not be held accountable for DP's mistakes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

DP demonstrates poor judgment[edit]

5) DP's behavior with Barney undermines the legitimacy of authority of the system. He displayed no sensitivity to the fact Barney was winning the AfD on the merits and that the complainant, Bearcat, was the nom who was losing and an admin as well, who might be counseled to grow a thicker skin. DP showed even more poor judgment by setting the block to run 3 days 'till the end of the AfD. DP should have counseled rather than blocked Barney when Bearcat complained. When Bearcat began baiting Barney on Barney's talk page, DP should have put a stop to that by reminding Bearcat that he also could face sanctions. However unconsciously, he and Bearcat effectively colluded to edge Barney closer to and eventually out the door in violation of WP:IUC. When I asked that he reconsider, he instantly and consistently became uncivil and was never willing to discuss the substance of my complaints in violation of WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. In violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:Administrators#Administrator conduct, he consistently refused at ANI to give the matter up to another uninvolved admin even after he'd clearly become quite angry and uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reviewing the AFD, I see the common pattern (see WP:WQA, WP:ANI) of two editors dedicated to the project inadvertently escalating a content discussion into something personal. Additionally I believe Bearcat's post on Barney's talk page was made in good faith, although it had the effect of baiting. TParis explained it well in a unrelated case "The fact of the matter is that the editors that contribute to the systems that get an editor blocked should not feel free to engage with the blocked editor". I concur that DP mismanaged the situation but don't consider it appropriate to reference Bearcat in any findings -- we're all imperfect. NE Ent 00:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

DP has a long pattern of uncivil behavior[edit]

6) How many diffs does anyone need?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think it's fair to say the evidentiary burden has been met.NE Ent 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I concur.- Mr X 02:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The admin community has failed to police its own[edit]

7) Any ordinary user who has been so frequently uncivil would have a block log that runs off the screen.

In response to jni, may I ask, okay, what is your alternative? Never mind, I know what it is. We're living it. It is nearly impossible to hold admins accountable. Ordinary users certainly can't do it. Look at the barriers to bringing a case, starting with the thin blue line at ANI. This isn't about wheel warring. Even though DP repeatedly made blatantly uncivil remarks and personal attacks on me right there at ANI, in plain view of probably hundreds of admins on any given day, not a single one stepped up to warn DP that he should stop, much less did they actually do anything to make him. Despite the clear evidence that DP should give up the case, it was closed against all possible logic as no problem, DP, carry on. This story is told over and over. We have a long, long history of examples where DP has posted completely deplorable language and personal attacks and so far, the ONLY documented case of an admin stepping up to warn DP of consequences was Jimbo Wales. So what do you think that means? I think it means the admin community has failed to police its own. Msnicki (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Doc9871, kindly refer to the long list of diffs helpfully provided by MrX and NE Ent on the evidence page and in the archived RFCU and get back to me if you still have questions. Msnicki (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

So now you want admins to start wheel warring over civility? You are making a weird collectivistic accusation here, because it is not possible to remove admin tools from DP by majority vote of other admins or "admin community" (there really is no such thing) to really effectively "police" or limit the mop-wielding discretion of their peers (without ArbCom). jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that the above statement seems to be implicitly accepting several things which are nowhere specifically indicated within the statement itself. As someone who has in the past made proposals I knew didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually being implemented, I really can't criticize that completely, but I do think this particular proposal seems to be more, well, judgmental and perhaps inflammatory than is necessarily for its own good. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "long, long history of examples where DP has posted completely deplorable language and personal attacks"? Is there a long, long list? I don't see it. And if you don't compile it: it does not exist as evidence. Doc talk 06:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that thing. I concur with Dennis Brown's summary. Allow me to paraphrase: "The sheer lack of links showing when Ent or others have tried to resolve the issue tells me that there is a lack of communication going on. Coming here so soon, dragging up instances that are so old, using evidence that is so weak...", and so on. Yep. Doc talk 07:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

DP should not be an admin[edit]

1) Adminship is a privilege to be exercised with judgment and skill that DP is unwilling or unable to supply.

In reply to Jehochman and John Carter below: Ah, yes, Nobody knows the trouble I've seen. Quite honestly, I'm just plain disappointed when I read stuff like this. I mean, I know they're just being a little flippant, delighting in having that shared experience of dealing with some culprits. But I find the manner of expression and the levity to be an insult to both the intellect and the sensibilities. For starters, a lot us, including both me and Jehochman are computer scientists who should be very aware of how the term privilege is used in the context of operating systems, that, e.g., to do various things, you need appropriate privileges. That happens to be exactly the context here, because, guess what, WP is a big computer system and indeed, admins get more system privileges to do things, like block other users. But I find myself even more viscerally offended that there are admins who may not think that being selected to serve the community is a privilege in the more basic sense of being an honor bestowed on only a few. If you don't believe it is a privilege or fail to appreciate that you serve at the pleasure of the community, than I really doubt that you get what this is about and I question whether this is what you should be doing. I recommend fewer jokes, more reflection. Msnicki (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not a privilege. More of an obligation or a curse. Jehochman ^Talk 23:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a former admin who is more than happy that he used to be an admin and is one no longer, I wholeheartedly agree. To err is human, to be an admin is to be scrutinized to the greatest degree humanly possible, criticized for even the slightest error, and, basically, requested to stop being human. Alpha Lanterns clearly failed in even fiction, and there is no reason to believe the idea is more possible in reality, although people seem to constantly demand otherwise. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP should be warned[edit]

2) DP should be given what amounts to a final warning that incivility and personal attacks are simply not allowed. There will be no new warnings. From here on, he faces blocks, the same as everyone else.

In response to those who feel that the boundaries of incivility and personal attacks may not be crystal clear, yada, yada, may I offer two points:

There is absolutely no showing that DP spends a lot of time in that hazy area. Many if not most or possibly even all of DP's transgressions, e.g., his initial response to me on Barney's talk page (and which he implausibly continued to insist couldn't possibly be taken as insulting right to the bitter end) appear to be taken almost word-for-word from the examples at WP:IUC. It is beyond credulity that ordinary English speakers would have any difficulty whatsoever in identifying the kinds of the things DP writes as incivility or personal attacks because they are somehow too nuanced.
Oh, my. What if someone blocked DP for what seemed liked incivility or a personal attack that wasn't really? Well, I guess DP would have to do anyone else would have to do: He would have to post an unblock request or, if he wished to contest it, demand the block be explained. And, yes, he will find out how hard that is. Pardon me, I think I have a tear forming. No, sorry, that was just dust. Msnicki (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not a bad idea, but the problem is that the boundaries aren't defined and this is a recipe for drama. Civility paroles have been tried and rejected because they don't work in practice. Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Civility paroles have been tried and rejected, then what do you call this? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I would call it more detailed and better defined than this proposal itself is. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This is a fair proposal, but it doesn't address the type of calculated incivility that doesn't cross the line. I doubt any editor will ever be blocked for saying "shake your head", WTF or "For the hard of hearing...".- Mr X 01:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will proposal another principle. An effective strategy for dealing with persistent low level incivility is to ignore the person. Jehochman ^Talk 01:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP's block of Barney should be lifted[edit]

3) Additionally, the block log visibility should be set so that only the initial (abeit excessive itself) 3-day block should be visible and listed as expired.

Added: Yes, many thanks to Floquenbeam for stepping up. I wasn't surprised it was him, not after I saw this. He gets it. Msnicki (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Moot [18] ;) NE Ent 21:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm glad that's been resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 23:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposals by User:Kurtis[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

Administrators[edit]

Administrator accountability[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

DangerousPanda: Administrative actions[edit]

DangerousPanda: Response to criticism[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

DangerousPanda admonished[edit]

DangerousPanda desysopped[edit]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Proposals by NE Ent[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of administrator user access level[edit]

Be nice[edit]

Assistants, not Paladins[edit]

Transparency[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

DangerousPanda: Administrator accountability [edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Decorum[edit]

Barney the barney barney[edit]

DanielTom[edit]

Blocks reviewed[edit]

Proposals by User:Jehochman[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

To anger is human[edit]

WP:BITE[edit]

Responding to Incivility[edit]

Shunning[edit]

Blocking to enforce civility[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Proposals by User:Msnicki[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Blocks must be explained[edit]

A user must be warned[edit]

An admin who becomes involved or cannot remain civil should recuse himself[edit]

Admin misconduct undermines the legitimacy of the project[edit]

Admins should enjoy no special exemption from the guidelines[edit]

An essential skill for admins is the ability to moderate disputes[edit]

The guidelines clearly define incivility[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Barney was not warned[edit]

DP allowed baiting[edit]

DP became involved[edit]

DP's indef block of Barney was unreasonable[edit]

DP demonstrates poor judgment[edit]

DP has a long pattern of uncivil behavior[edit]

The admin community has failed to police its own[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

DP should not be an admin[edit]

DP should be warned[edit]

DP's block of Barney should be lifted[edit]

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]

Template[edit]